To the Republic

[Nohwear]

So, then you are completely dismissing the notion that even if someone did not vote out of racism, they are still being complacent about it? The fact does remain that racist, xenophobic, hateful rhetoric was a large part of his campaign. Therefore, at the least this was not a deal breaker. there was also a large lack of details about how he was going to do any of the positive things that he promised.

[TigerTiger]

Quote:

I cannot.

I appreciate your honesty.

[Terquem]

When a man, a seventy year old man, mocks a disable person as if he himself is in the fifth grade, and his supporters overlook this

Something is seriously wrong.

[BigNorseWolf]

I suppose there is a level of "Hillary Clinton will start WW3 (and Trump won't) and must be stopped " that would let the vote happen without any racism, but would take a the whole bucket of cocoa puffs.

[TigerTiger]

Quote:

So, then you are completely dismissing the notion that even if someone did not vote out of racism, they are still being complacent about it? The fact does remain that racist, xenophobic, hateful rhetoric was a large part of his campaign. Therefore, at the least this was not a deal breaker. there was also a large lack of details about how he was going to do any of the positive things that he promised.

I think we're having separate conversations. I was actually responding to a question asked by Ryric. So I suppose I'm saying what I'm saying, not what you're saying. Sorry for the confusion.

[Nohwear]

TigerTiger wrote:

Quote:

So, then you are completely dismissing the notion that even if someone did not vote out of racism, they are still being complacent about it? The fact does remain that racist, xenophobic, hateful rhetoric was a large part of his campaign. Therefore, at the least this was not a deal breaker. there was also a large lack of details about how he was going to do any of the positive things that he promised.

I think we're having separate conversations. I was actually responding to a question asked by Ryric. So I suppose I'm saying what I'm saying, not what you're saying. Sorry for the confusion.

That is a distinct possibility. In that case I will offer an apology and a respectful bow.

[BigNorseWolf]

Nohwear wrote:

That is a distinct possibility. In that case I will offer an apology and a respectful bow.

*squish*

Returns brain to vat.

[TigerTiger]

Quote:

I suppose there is a level of "Hillary Clinton will start WW3 (and Trump won't) and must be stopped " that would let the vote happen without any racism, but would take a the whole bucket of cocoa puffs.

I have to admit I liked the clean simplicity of "I cannot."

[Crusinos]

Terquem wrote:

When a man, a seventy year old man, mocks a disable person as if he himself is in the fifth grade, and his supporters overlook this

Something is seriously wrong.

Agreed. And, to be honest, I think the something wrong wasn't on his side.

As much as I'd love to say good things about her... Hillary Clinton ran the most scandal-ridden campaign I have ever seen.

It doesn't help that Trump's trying to connect her to Cosby was too believable. The sexual predators she's had in her life as allies include Wiener, her husband, and Trump himself. This created the problem where anything she called him on could be seen as highlighting her own lack of judgement. I saw more than one person say, "If you think Trump is such a bigot, then why were you friends with him?"

I am not surprised so many Americans consistently rated her a liar in every poll. There was too much about her history that cast doubts on her women's rights championship, and that was seen by many as the centerpiece of her campaign. Her poor judgement of people haunted her the entire time she ran against Trump, and Trump capitalized on it.

In many ways, Trump himself came to personify everything that had gone wrong in her life and every mistake she had ever made. There was no charge she could level against him, no accusation she could throw at him, no mistake she could call him on that did not reflect badly on her in some way as well.

She could have beaten any other candidate the Republicans could have fielded with ease. But not him. Because with him in the field, the entire election became about her mistakes, her screw-ups, her bad judgement calls. It became about everything she did wrong in her life.

And some of those I know who voted for Trump were not even thinking about him. They were thinking about her, and how they couldn't stomach what they saw of her.

[thunderspirit]

TigerTiger wrote:

Okay, put it differently, can you imagine a reason anyone could vote for Trump that didn't involve them being evil, stupid, racist or misinformed? In other words, could you imagine any reason a decent, well-meaning, informed, generally okay person might vote for Trump? If you could, what would it be? (All in the context that half of the voting population of the United States voted for him.)

For avoidance of doubt, "no" is a perfectly acceptable though depressing answer.

Nothing rational, no. But then, voting often isn't rational.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a Thanksgiving dinner with a bunch of Archie Bunker relatives to host.

[thejeff]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

I feel the need to point out that racism isn't a superpower.

Its' a word. It has to have some meaning. When used to describe people there needs to be a subset of people that it applies to and another subset of people that it doesn't. If it doesn't do that then it's meaningless.

True, but it's also not a binary thing. It's a spectrum. Some people are on the Klan/Nazi end of it - wanting to hurt and kill the other race. For others it's more of a "I don't want them here or want anything to do with them". For others it's more that they've absorbed stereotypes and just expect people of that race to be like that - this also allows for the "good Negro" fallacy - I know this guy and he's an exception.

I'm sure there are some people who are completely untouched by any form of racism or other prejudice. I've never knowingly met one. I don't really know how they could have managed to grow up in our culture without being influenced by some of it. I know I haven't. I know I catch myself sometimes.

I've run into plenty of people who claimed to be completely non-racist. They've also tended claim racism basically doesn't exist in the US, except in the form of prejudice against whites. I'm skeptical, to say the least.

[Crusinos]

thejeff wrote:

I'm sure there are some people who are completely untouched by any form of racism or other prejudice. I've never knowingly met one. I don't really know how they could have managed to grow up in our culture without being influenced by some of it. I know I haven't. I know I catch myself sometimes.

The answer is simple: They didn't. Everyone I've met who's grown up untouched by racism has been an immigrant.

[thejeff]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

I suppose there is a level of "Hillary Clinton will start WW3 (and Trump won't) and must be stopped " that would let the vote happen without any racism, but would take a the whole bucket of cocoa puffs.

I think that falls into "misinformed". Or possibly "stupid".

[Freehold DM]

TigerTiger wrote:

Quote:

To me though, the fact remains that Trump supporters were either fine with the racism or the type who do not really believe in it.

So you're going with half the population of the United States is evil? Okay.

Evil? I wouldn't say so.

The biggest problem with racism as a black man who had lived in several parts of this country isn't that racism is evil - although people who are unabashedly proud of the fact and practice it openly often are. The problem is that racism is based in fear. Not just fear of the other, or fear of what's different or fear of the unknown(and white semi rural/suburban Americans LOVE to stand up to those two fears, I have learned), rather, it is fear of what we DO know. The stories we hear on the news. The statistics that back up stereotypes. The fear that today is the day you become another cautionary tale. It is not evil, or even hate, but fear that causes racist thoughts to rise in even the most reasonable mind, and in fact I would say it is because we are reasonable that fear plays a major role in our lives. This is what makes racism so awful, so insidious- to many people it is not just plausible, but reasonable.

[thejeff]

TigerTiger wrote:

Quote:

You make a fair point. I tend to subscribe to "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence" myself. Usually I can put myself in another's place and try to comprehend their point of view, but I have nothing here. That's why I'm asking for help.

To be fair, there's nothing new about my exercise; debaters, attorneys and negotiators frequently do exercises where they argue one side of an argument, then switch sides of the table and argue the other side. It helps ensure your own arguments are robust and can stand up to challenge, while also helping to build bridges and find win-win solutions. Often people think they're opposed when they actually are arguing at cross-purposes and can both get what they want if they're more thoughtful and creative.

In terms of Trump voters, an easy position to start from is that many people thought both candidates were awful and voted for Trump because he wouldn't be as bad for them as Hillary. Why might they do that?

There are more reasons not based on Trump being the lesser of two evils, but that's a start for now. Do you think you could add any more now or are you still pretty much in the stupid/evil camp?

The problem with this exercise, which I think is generally a useful one, is that you run the risk of whitewashing real threats. You're coming up with your own excuses for someone else's bad behavior.

At the risk of Godwinning us, I can imagine a Jew in 1930s Germany making a similar list of reasons and deciding his neighbors really couldn't be that evil and it would all work out fine.

Or on a less drastic and more personal level, the lies many abuse victims tell themselves about their partner.

There may always be some theoretically acceptable reason for someone's actions, but that's not always the real reason. There's a long history of scapegoating, by racism and other bigotries being used for political gain. In the US, it's been a mainstay of the Republican party since the Southern Strategy began. For a long time it was more dog whistles and code than open, but that's changed in the last years and Trump played to the worst of it pretty openly. The idea that despite that, it had little effect really doesn't ring true to me.

Edit: Of course, if you're right and most of Trump's support is really despite all the evil things he's promised, I'd expect those of his supporters who had completely different motives to jump in and oppose him (or his party) when they start implementing his plans. Or Pence's for that matter.

[Freehold DM]

Nohwear wrote:

So, then you are completely dismissing the notion that even if someone did not vote out of racism, they are still being complacent about it? The fact does remain that racist, xenophobic, hateful rhetoric was a large part of his campaign. Therefore, at the least this was not a deal breaker. there was also a large lack of details about how he was going to do any of the positive things that he promised.

another thing i have noticed is that for a large population of white people in this country, race just isn't an issue. When 95 percent of the people you meet look almost exactly like you, there really isn't a problem in that category- or indeed anything to discuss. Should you bring someone of another race into your life, someone may say something. But it is very easy to see those that do as idiots- I mean isn't it obvious ? - , and either try to educate them(which quickly becomes exhausting) or dismiss them completely in that area. I find that this is especially true when someone is related to that person, and may even love them in every other aspect of their lives. That person's racism becomes a bad habit in that case more often than not, I have observed- something you love them in spite of, and sometimes that makes you love them even more. They are flawed. They need your love. It's charming, in a way.

Now, if a guy gets on TV and starts saying some racist claptrap, it's easy to ignore them or change the channel - his bigotry isn't going to affect you in day to day life and you can just ignore them (as you aren't going to get the chance to encounter them and change their mind), and as noted above isn't it obvious that they are being stupid? Besides, they are a lot like the loved one mentioned above - not really a bad person, just flawed. We are all flawed aren't we? And flawed people need love.

In a world where racism really doesn't matter as it doesn't affect you directly I could easily see someone who isn't racist voting for Trump, especially if they are related to people who already say racist things they have learned to ignore or dismiss or see as a disgusting but charming flaw.

[Crusinos]

thejeff wrote:

At the risk of Godwinning us, I can imagine a Jew in 1930s Germany making a similar list of reasons and deciding his neighbors really couldn't be that evil and it would all work out fine.

The problem is, by all evidence this was actually true of Germany. The Holocaust's lethal effect was not that well-known even in Germany until after the war, and there were a lot of Germans who actively helped Jews escape the Nazis. It also doesn't help that just about every German politician in the 1930s ran on an anti-Jewish platform.

Ever wonder why most stories of people running from Nazis and getting gunned down in the streets are not set in Germany, but in territories Germany occupied? The Jews within Germany didn't believe it would happen. And given they were often targeted by those in power as scapegoats in just about everywhere in Europe, as well as the U.S., up to that point... to them, this was just another day at the office. This was normal for whenever Jews came up in politics. Even a lot of Americans agreed with the idea the Jews were to blame for whatever the problem of the week was (which puts Jews with black people, Asians, the Irish...). So, they had no reason to believe this would be anything different.

Germany had already been falsely accused of genocide during the previous war. To some who opposed Germany the Holocaust was not a credible event until after they started finding physical evidence. So even when governments had intelligence that it was happening, they either kept quiet or simply didn't believe the intelligence because it wasn't credible without physical evidence.

The reason why the Nazis got away with the Holocaust for so long was because of the Cry Wolf Effect. There were even Jewish groups outside of Germany who accused those bringing forth early reports of the Holocaust of antisemitism.

So the image of the Jew in 1930s Germany thinking his neighbor was not racist and it would work out is what actually happened.

Edit: Next time I copy and paste, I need to make certain not to accidentally delete part.

[CBDunkerson]

TigerTiger wrote:

In terms of Trump voters, an easy position to start from is that many people thought both candidates were awful and voted for Trump because he wouldn't be as bad for them as Hillary. Why might they do that?

Because they were misinformed? :]

Quote:

- Hillary is pro-renewable energy and talked about putting coal miners out of jobs and coal companies out of business. Trump did not and spoke frequently about the plight of blue collar workers without a college degree. If I'm a coal miner, I don't need to be evil or stupid to decide Trump makes more sense for me than Clinton.

Evil or stupid, no. Misinformed, yes.

Trump was LYING to the coal miners. Hillary was telling them the truth. Their jobs are going away. Clinton herself has nothing to do with that. Coal mining jobs have been in decline for decades. The largest privately held coal company in the world (Peabody) filed for bankruptcy last year - along with several others. There have been almost no new coal plants built in the US the past five years. Et cetera.

Coal power is dying. It is no longer economically viable even if we continue to provide it with massive subsidies and ignore its health and environmental costs. It can no longer compete with natural gas, wind, OR solar power.

Quote:

- The above can be expanded more generally to cover blue collar workers who are opposed to illegal immigration for economic reasons rather than evil/racist ones. Trump takes a harder line than Clinton on this front.

Sorry, but you will have to come up with some sort of 'economic reason' which ISN'T just racist BS because I am not aware of any.

Quote:

- People who are first generation legal immigrants or those married to first generation legal immigrants (like, for instance, me) might prefer Trump's stance on illegal immigration simply because they or their loved ones went through great effort to legally come to this country and they don't agree with letting others flout the law and jump the line.

Trump's stance on illegal immigration is openly racist. If you prefer falsely calling them rapists and other violent criminals and nonsense about building a massive wall to keep them out (which, it wouldn't) then you're definitely in the 'misinformed' camp and trending towards 'evil'.

I suspect you mean not Trump's exact (i.e. racist and stupid) stance, but rather something more nebulous like 'I am against illegal immigration'... but at that point you can't really make the case that Clinton would have been worse on the subject than Trump. She wanted to pursue reality based solutions... Trump's position on the issue is pure fiction.

Quote:

- Proponents of individual freedom who prefer smaller government may support Trump for first taking on and defeating the entrenched Republican political elite and then taking on and defeating the entrenched Democrat political elite. This is one of the positions I personally am most sympathetic to.

How does Trump winning advance individual freedom or smaller government? His stated policies would require MASSIVE increases in the size of government (to round up all the illegal immigrants, build a massive wall, et cetera) and absolutely trample individual freedom (hey, let's register all the arabs/muslims and monitor them!). I mean WTF!?

Leave smaller government and individual freedom out of it and just say that you like him because he beat the elites... ok. You're clearly overlooking the fact that HE IS ONE OF THE 'ELITES', but that's merely myopic rather than outright crazy talk.

Quote:

- From a foreign policy perspective, people could be opposed to Obama's wars of choice in the Middle East;

Libya and Syria? Trump supported both.

Quote:

the nuclear deal with Iran;

They'd be misinformed, since it has obviously worked... or did Iran nuke Israel without anyone noticing?

Quote:

the weakened or deteriorating relations between the US and Israel,

And they thought the guy with the one of the nation's leading anti-semitic voices as his chief policy adviser was just the person to fix that?

Quote:

the US and UK,

Say what now? Obama was much better for US & UK relations than Bush, and Trump... it isn't even close.

Quote:

the US and Russia;

We should have better ties with a criminal syndicate running a rogue nation? Well... then I have to admit. Trump is their man.

Quote:

the failure to identify or deal with the threat of ISIS;

Personally, I consider the threat from ISIS to the US vastly overblown, and would note that ISIS formed during the Bush administration and became 'powerful' (to the little extent it has) due to Bush admin policies. Also... ISIS is losing control and in significant danger of collapsing.

Quote:

the relative lack of progress from the pivot to Asia.

Relative to what?

Quote:

Clinton is widely viewed as a continuation of these policies or a creator of them while SoS while Trump represents an opportunity for change (for better or worse).

Trump will certainly represent change. If he really puts freaking Bolton in at State we can expect four years of unmitigated foreign policy disaster.

Quote:

- Many, many people on both left and right are deeply opposed to free trade agreements for reasons that cannot be easily labeled as evil or stupid. Trump is vocally willing to go protectionist/fair trade and Clinton is not (or waffles depending on her audience).

Again, I consider those people misinformed... though in this case it is less clear cut and thus more understandable. Basically, the TPP has good and bad aspects, but overall will have very little impact on the US economy and jobs. The reason I support it is as a check on China and advancement of that Asian policy that you think has had 'relatively little progress'.

Quote:

- A fair number of voters may have been bothered by the fact that out of a population of 300 million people, the Democrats thought the best choice for President just happened to be the wife of a previous President.

I don't like political dynasties either... but that's not sufficient reason to vote for Trump.

Quote:

For better or worse, Trump is not part of a political dynasty and is very much an outsider.

Except for all the hob-nobbing (and bribing) he has done with politicians over the years.

Quote:

There are more reasons not based on Trump being the lesser of two evils, but that's a start for now. Do you think you could add any more now or are you still pretty much in the stupid/evil camp?

There is a vast difference between there being some things reasonable/informed people can dislike about Clinton or like about Trump (though that one is more of a stretch) and considering him the better (or even a remotely appropriate) candidate.

[thejeff]

Freehold DM wrote:

Nohwear wrote:

So, then you are completely dismissing the notion that even if someone did not vote out of racism, they are still being complacent about it? The fact does remain that racist, xenophobic, hateful rhetoric was a large part of his campaign. Therefore, at the least this was not a deal breaker. there was also a large lack of details about how he was going to do any of the positive things that he promised.

another thing i have noticed is that for a large population of white people in this country, race just isn't an issue. When 95 percent of the people you meet look almost exactly like you, there really isn't a problem in that category- or indeed anything to discuss. Should you bring someone of another race into your life, someone may say something. But it is very easy to see those that do as idiots- I mean isn't it obvious ? - , and either try to educate them(which quickly becomes exhausting) or dismiss them completely in that area. I find that this is especially true when someone is related to that person, and may even love them in every other aspect of their lives. That person's racism becomes a bad habit in that case more often than not, I have observed- something you love them in spite of, and sometimes that makes you love them even more. They are flawed. They need your love. It's charming, in a way.

Now, if a guy gets on TV and starts saying some racist claptrap, it's easy to ignore them or change the channel - his bigotry isn't going to affect you in day to day life and you can just ignore them (as you aren't going to get the chance to encounter them and change their mind), and as noted above isn't it obvious that they are being stupid? Besides, they are a lot like the loved one mentioned above - not really a bad person, just flawed. We are all flawed aren't we? And flawed people need love.

In a world where racism really doesn't matter as it doesn't affect you directly I could easily see someone who isn't racist voting for Trump, especially if they...

Generally, I'd call such people racist, just on the lower, unthinking, end of the scale.

They probably, for example, have absorbed a lot of the stereotypes of black people - urban thug, welfare queen, etc. Their reaction to BLM is likely to deny that there's a problem - the police are trustworthy so anyone getting shot or beaten up must have been at fault.

And even without that, voting for the guy who's obviously being stupid about race, is pretty stupid in itself? If he's stupid about that, what else is he stupid about?

[TigerTiger]

Quote:

The problem with this exercise, which I think is generally a useful one, is that you run the risk of whitewashing real threats. You're coming up with your own excuses for someone else's bad behavior.

At the risk of Godwinning us, I can imagine a Jew in 1930s Germany making a similar list of reasons and deciding his neighbors really couldn't be that evil and it would all work out fine.

As I said in my original post, the exercise doesn't work for all positions and I referenced the Holocaust and the Khmer Rouge as examples where "evil" was the only reasonable answer. I also suggested Flat Earthers as examples where "stupid/misinformed" was the only reasonable answer.

I also said that the view that half the US voting population going for Trump is in the same category as Hitler and the Holocaust is unserious and not worth engaging with. Trump is not Hitler and none of his statements or proposals are the Holocaust.

The benefit of the exercise, which debate teams, attorneys and negotiators engage in all the time, is that if you can't find a good faith explanation for your opponent's position (something that doesn't hinge on them being evil, racist, stupid or misinformed), then in the majority of cases the problem lies with your lack of understanding, not theirs. It challenges a person to think harder and understand other people's point of view better. Doesn't mean they have to agree with it or accept it, just acknowledge that people can have honest differences of opinion without being Nazis.

Yes, occasionally it comes down to the fact that your opponent really is Hitler or the Khmer Rouge - but not often.

[TigerTiger]

CBDunkerson, I understand your position and I don't think there's really anything to talk about. You're in the same place as BigNorseWolf: "I cannot." Let's leave it at that.

[Chris Lambertz]

Locking.

Removed a number of posts and their responses, either for off-topic commentary, derailment, personally abusive statements, or intentional baiting others in the conversation. Folks, after an incredibly contentious electoral cycle and the amount of work put in by our staff during that time to moderate discussions (as well as conflict between community members), we've made the decision to put political threads in our Off-Topic subforum on pause for the time being. We are regrouping to consider how we handle political threads moving forward, and do not have an ETA for when they will continue. Our goal with our forums is to create a productive space for gamers to come together, and at the moment, these threads are driving a wedge into that space. A sticky will be posted in this subforum indicating as such shortly.