[Terez]

Silencer, on 22 July 2016 - 12:10 AM, said:

Terez, on 21 July 2016 - 10:12 PM, said:

I agree with Darkwatch. Exposure is the first step toward healing; this has been proven time and again in recent history (i.e. the last century or so). Some will double down on their beliefs knowing they have company; others will be forced to face the ugliness of their own beliefs. The younger generation in particular will benefit from the exposure.

Like I said, so double-edged. I don't disagree with the original sentiment, but I do genuinely believe that very few people who are "forced to face the ugliness of their beliefs" will do any changing at all.

I see it happen all the time. I'm from Mississippi, arguably the most backwards state in the country. The internet is doing wonders for these people. Again, not all of them, and not overnight. But I've found it very interesting to watch friends and family gradually become more tolerant and liberal as the years go on. I used to vote Republican; I voted for W both times. My mother was a lifelong Republican; she voted for McCain in 2008 and Obama in 2012. Other friends and family are in various stages of progress. Maybe you're just not looking in the right places.

[worry]

I suppose he was less overtly racist, settling for dogwhistles like "the refugee crisis threatening the West", continuing to reframe his ban on Muslims as an amorphous watchlist of terrorist source countries, etc. He left all the really overt stuff to the people before him like Joe Arpaio, who makes the Sheriff of Nottingham look like a saint. And he also didn't encourage anyone to bash people in the face or manhandle women.

Still, did he make a single specific policy proposal aside from damaging the barrier between church and state by seeking to allow churches to become political entities? It was literally the same "we'll do this quick"/"we'll do this big" specifics-free stuff he's been peddling the whole past year. I don't know why I expected him to at least throw people a bone with one or two actual policy proposals. You'd think an advisor would have urged him to stick one in to break the monotony. The audience seemed largely bored (except for some anti-Hillary chants), probably tuckered out from the endless Hillbilly Jim concert that preceded Trump.

I'm really not sure if or how he thinks this speech attracts anyone to him. He mentioned Dems like they're a given. He evoked Bernie like that's gonna fool young people. I really wonder why Trump hasn't mentioned the War on Drugs at all. If he wanted to attract new people, that seems like a no-brainer.

[worry]

Pretty evenhanded fact-check of many of the claims in Trump's speech (with citations): http://www.nytimes.c...fact-check.html

[Silencer]

Terez, on 22 July 2016 - 12:17 AM, said:

Silencer, on 22 July 2016 - 12:10 AM, said:

Terez, on 21 July 2016 - 10:12 PM, said:

I agree with Darkwatch. Exposure is the first step toward healing; this has been proven time and again in recent history (i.e. the last century or so). Some will double down on their beliefs knowing they have company; others will be forced to face the ugliness of their own beliefs. The younger generation in particular will benefit from the exposure.

Like I said, so double-edged. I don't disagree with the original sentiment, but I do genuinely believe that very few people who are "forced to face the ugliness of their beliefs" will do any changing at all.

I see it happen all the time. I'm from Mississippi, arguably the most backwards state in the country. The internet is doing wonders for these people. Again, not all of them, and not overnight. But I've found it very interesting to watch friends and family gradually become more tolerant and liberal as the years go on. I used to vote Republican; I voted for W both times. My mother was a lifelong Republican; she voted for McCain in 2008 and Obama in 2012. Other friends and family are in various stages of progress. Maybe you're just not looking in the right places.

See, I consider that evidence to the contrary of your point. I don't think any of the people you're referring to have been forced to look their own beliefs in the cold hard light of day - I think they've been slowly beaten down by the long and consistent campaign to decry these values over the past couple of years. That is *quite* the opposite of getting a bunch of vocal wackjobs on stage, reinforcing and pandering to these beliefs on a national scale in an official capacity.

What you're talking about (it seems, anyway) is not what I think Darkwatch or I were talking about - you're talking about erosion/attrition through sustained ANTI-bigotry. That, I agree, works. What I took us to be talking about was people essentially having role models in high places stating and reinforcing bigoted beliefs, which I don't think works anywhere near as well. Because the former is a wearing down. Every time bigotry rears its head, it gets called out and decried, but softly, almost without focus. That works its way into the public psyche over time and erodes the beliefs calmly.
Having Trump and his cohorts bombastically shouting from the rooftops doesn't do that. It turns everything into a heated argument, a center of debate, and that is precisely the type of arena in which bigots are able to dig their heels in and stick to their guns, because everything becomes lost in one outrage after another and endless shouting matches.

While I'd say that you can't effectively wear away at bigotry as long as it is hidden (you need something to push against, after all), I don't think having it out there on this scale all at once is useful either.


Incidentally, while I might be the one not looking in the right places, I don't think "my anecdotal evidence trumps your anecdotal evidence" is a very worthwhile way to argue this point, T. For every family member you can point to who has changed, I can probably find one of my own who hasn't - and NZ is comparatively liberal to the US - even if that change was caused by confronting the whole grisly mess (which as per previous paragraph, I contend it isn't).

[Terez]

Silencer, on 22 July 2016 - 05:37 AM, said:

See, I consider that evidence to the contrary of your point. I don't think any of the people you're referring to have been forced to look their own beliefs in the cold hard light of day - I think they've been slowly beaten down by the long and consistent campaign to decry these values over the past couple of years.

It takes a hefty dose of arrogance to assume you know anything about what makes these people tick, when you don't know anything about them at all and live all the way across the world.

[Vengeance]

Terez, on 22 July 2016 - 06:46 PM, said:

Silencer, on 22 July 2016 - 05:37 AM, said:

See, I consider that evidence to the contrary of your point. I don't think any of the people you're referring to have been forced to look their own beliefs in the cold hard light of day - I think they've been slowly beaten down by the long and consistent campaign to decry these values over the past couple of years.

It takes a hefty dose of arrogance to assume you know anything about what makes these people tick, when you don't know anything about them at all and live all the way across the world.

Yeah!! Politics!!

[Silencer]

Terez, on 22 July 2016 - 06:46 PM, said:

Silencer, on 22 July 2016 - 05:37 AM, said:

See, I consider that evidence to the contrary of your point. I don't think any of the people you're referring to have been forced to look their own beliefs in the cold hard light of day - I think they've been slowly beaten down by the long and consistent campaign to decry these values over the past couple of years.

It takes a hefty dose of arrogance to assume you know anything about what makes these people tick, when you don't know anything about them at all and live all the way across the world.

Right, so naturally nobody who doesn't live in the exact circumstances can even *hope* to have an opinion on what has caused their change, right? Americans are some sort of special snow flake to whom reactions like getting more resistant to change when confronted forcefully don't apply. To whom reactions like being reinforced in their views when presented with a strong, vocal leader espousing those views doesn't apply, right? Americans on the whole are just soooooooo unique that this would never be how it works for them, in general, despite it being basically how humans work across the rest of the world?


As I said, your argument is based on anecdotal evidence within your own family. That's literally useless for this argument. And, despite your (arrogant?) assumption about my point, I'm not actually making inferences about THEM specifically. I'm talking about the external stimuli they've been exposed to. Currently, it's Trump. Have there been a raft of Trumps on an international stage over the past couple of decades? No. Look back through every post you've made in this thread about how the Republicans have perfected dogwhistling. So by your own arguments, they haven't been exposed to this level of reinforcement. Thus my point that I *think* they have changed due to erosion, not introspection forced by seeing a Trump.
What I assume both your family and every other family in America has been exposed to, is the same stuff I can find on the gorram internet. Articles lambasting this or that personality for their racism. BLM protests. TV hosts and presenters calling foul on sexism. And of course their opposite numbers in the ranks of FOX and the like. And while your family might very well respond to Trump being so bombastically racist by going "oh, what the fuck, that's crazy?" (I DON'T KNOW), that really *doesn't* seem to be how hardcore bigots in America are reacting. Seeing as, you know, he got the nomination and all. Based on what I *can* see, it looks to me like dyed-in-the-wool racists and sexists are doing is becoming moreso. As one might expect. Which brings me back to my (arrogant) question about your family: were they hardcore bigots? Or just Republican voters who have started to drift? Were they exposed to Trump-level personalities and that drove their change? Or were they simply worn down by the slow and steady raft of news cycles and internet postings that condemned that perspective? I don't know the answer to these questions. But considering with all the internet access we have today I haven't seen anyone as loud and proud about their racism as Trump, and you yourself claim that Republican candidates are all experts at not being so, I'm not even sure why you are disagreeing with me. I'm not talking about fringe bigots, Terez. Swing voters and casual racists aren't what I'm worried about being affected by Trump. It's the people who, here and now today, are very bigoted and are being given a literal role model on an international stage running for President to look up to and emulate. You really think those people will have second thoughts because of Trump? Seriously?

[Tsundoku]

Jon Stewart says what everyone with at least half a brain and a shred of conscience is thinking:

http://www.theatlant...t-ailes/492596/

[worry]

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is out. Except not really until after the convention? It's unclear to me to what degree she'll still be a part of that. Too little too late either way, as she's damaged the Party pretty severely this cycle. Not that I think she's Machiavelli or anything, but she's exactly the kind of cynical behind the scenes politician Sanders has been railing about.

[Studlock]

So I've recently read Trump's bizarre 'foreign policy' interview and just...wow. At this point, even you hate Hilary with your very core, voting for, or not against Trump is literally an unethical act. The man is so divorced from reality it is ethically irresponsible to contribute to increasing his odds to have the ability to fire nukes--he wouldn't even understand the consequences of do it. Voting for Trump, or not voting against him, is literally increasing the likelihood of world wide extinction via nuclear war. I'm just so baffled he got this far.

[amphibian]

Kanyemander West, on 24 July 2016 - 08:43 PM, said:

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is out. Except not really until after the convention? It's unclear to me to what degree she'll still be a part of that. Too little too late either way, as she's damaged the Party pretty severely this cycle. Not that I think she's Machiavelli or anything, but she's exactly the kind of cynical behind the scenes politician Sanders has been railing about.

The thing that ticks me off about the stolen/leaked e-mails is that it was very clear the vast majority of the Democratic party politicians/organizers/fundraisers were with Hillary from the get-go. Every significant staffer of Obama's two campaigns has been working for HRC for a long while now.

So the DWS stuff is what we already knew + a couple layers of callousness and bad analytics and maybe a few Russian plants. None of this is particularly surprising for party politics and is relatively tame stuff.

That being said, I think DWS was/is an awful DNC chair. She should be replaced by someone better.

[worry]

Pretty much yeah. Nothing surprising, but it nakedly confirmed the cynic's take on the political machine and that's never a good look. I would say it made the Dems look as bad as the Reps, if I didn't think a leak of RNC communications would be 1000 times uglier. I suppose chairperson is a thankless job, and doesn't necessarily attract the best and brightest, but couldn't these guys stand to be like 25% less stereotypical?

[Hairshirt]

I agree it's a thankless job, and I assume it's very time consuming. Then to top that off DWS is also a congresswoman in the middle of a reelection campaign! I feel sorry for her in a way, it's clear the DNC wanted Hillary and actively pushed for her throughout the campaign. Unfortunately there has to be a scapegoat and it's DWS. I'll be curious to see if anyone else who's been identified in the collusion is forced to resign in the coming days.

By the way does anyone else think the DNC trying to push the blame to Trump colluding with Putin as a little crazy?

Poor Bernie by the way, I'd be furious. I respect him for sucking it up and endorsing her even though it's probably killing him inside.

This post has been edited by Hairshirt: 25 July 2016 - 10:28 PM

[Terez]

Hairshirt, on 25 July 2016 - 10:25 PM, said:

I agree it's a thankless job, and I assume it's very time consuming. Then to top that off DWS is also a congresswoman in the middle of a reelection campaign! I feel sorry for her in a way, it's clear the DNC wanted Hillary and actively pushed for her throughout the campaign. Unfortunately there has to be a scapegoat and it's DWS. I'll be curious to see if anyone else who's been identified in the collusion is forced to resign in the coming days.

I don't feel sorry for her at all; she has been a horrible DNC chair all along.

Hairshirt, on 25 July 2016 - 10:25 PM, said:

By the way does anyone else think the DNC trying to push the blame to Trump colluding with Putin as a little crazy?

It's nuts. There's a Hillarybot arguing this on another forum I attend; I've just been ignoring that argument and addressing his other points because it's so nuts.

[Hairshirt]

Hillary's campaign manager put it out there on National TV, and the media's running with it. The only evidence seems to be "Trump likes Putin so yeah...... Trump did it." Crazy, at least attempt to get some credible evidence before you make these claims.

No matter what happens, Trump didn't write those emails, and he didn't screw over Bernie.

[WinterPhoenix]

Ok, so I don't have my finger on the pulse of American politics, it is hands down one of the most confusing subjects I've ever tried to get my head round and that includes Quantum Mechanics and String Theory! But I've had BBC news on in the background the past couple of hours, lots of coverage for the Democrat Convention as you would imagine. Now it seems to me that Bernie Sanders supporters (certainly those who would actively attend the convention to boo Hilary at any rate) are off the more politically active ilk, i.e. people for whom the idea of not voting surely doesn't sit well. I understand that there are independent 3rd party candidates in the United States, but such a vote is akin to voting for the Monster Raving Loony party here in Britain - one wonders how the founding fathers would view the political arena of modern day United States. So my question is simple, is hatred for Hilary Clinton among Bernie supporters really so great that they would waste a vote even in the face of the patently terrifying Trump presidency now staring the world down its gullet?

I can say this, were I a United States citizen the only candidate in this entire race I would ever have felt comfortable voting for was Bernie Sanders, frankly I was amazed at how much we had in common politically for an American politician - myself being quite some way to the left, I am acquainted with the general taboo that is socialist policy and socialism in general in the US. I do not like Hilary, I would not trust Hilary were I American, and the current email scandal is indicative of serious issues in the party political process - issues I can understand being disgusted by as a Bernie supporters. Nonetheless I cannot imagine shooting myself in the foot so spectacularly as to allow my dislike to foster a general atmosphere where Trump's eventual election is that much more likely, even stalwart supporters of Sanders must surely realise how much worse off they and others will be with Trump as president? There is literally no way on this earth that anyone could be as utterly detrimental to the US - in all arenas, foreign policy, domestic etc - as Trump threatens to be. The rabid nature of his supporters - and the frankly frenzied atmosphere at the Republican convention - is reminiscent of the rise to power of the Nazi party - and I do not make that comparison lightly, I am aware of the ridiculous overuse of such observations, particularly on the interwebz. It is disturbing on a whole other level.

I wont get into just how the emails came to be leaked, I haven't really been paying close enough attention to have an opinion worth stating. However, I will say that any and all Sanders supporters who say it doesn't matter where they came from are being naive.

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

Most people I know don't believe the "Russians hacked the DNC" narrative. To them, this isn't the Cold War and Russia is not Public Enemy #1 anymore. I'm not sure whether I agree with this view, but I believe it is relatively prevalent amongst progressives in their 20s.

[WinterPhoenix]

Whisperzzzzzzz, on 26 July 2016 - 01:30 AM, said:

Most people I know don't believe the "Russians hacked the DNC" narrative. To them, this isn't the Cold War and Russia is not Public Enemy #1 anymore. I'm not sure whether I agree with this view, but I believe it is relatively prevalent amongst progressives in their 20s.

Ya, not knowing as much about it as I could, I hesitate to say anything on either side of the argument, just as a kneejerk thing I would suggest that the 'Russian Hack' seems like out-there conspiracy territory. Frankly, though, far stranger things have happened, and it isn't wild for me to believe that Putin and the Russian administration would be in favour of Trump over Clinton. So I wont come down on either side until either I know more or it becomes self-evident. I do think it is naive to suggest it doesn't matter either way though, the BBC news coverage suggested that, that is what they have heard from a number of Sanders supporters disrupting the Democrat convention.

[worry]

WinterPhoenix, on 26 July 2016 - 01:24 AM, said:

I can say this, were I a United States citizen the only candidate in this entire race I would ever have felt comfortable voting for was Bernie Sanders.

That's true of me too, but that's the thing about politics right? The vast majority of the time, you're voting for people who you're not 100% comfortable with. During this particular election, we happened to have an actual human being among the choices, and not getting him sucks. But aside from him, the election is otherwise just the normal choice between a mixed bag and downright evil. Same choice we always have. It seems worse because we finally had someone good to contrast it with, but it's not really.

That isn't to downplay how bad Trump is, it's just to say that recent-history Republicans in general aren't any better. They're all walking disasters, and the American decline has been cumulative and cooperative at their hands (along with any spineless Dem willing to lean right of the dial).

[WinterPhoenix]

Kanyemander West, on 26 July 2016 - 01:46 AM, said:

WinterPhoenix, on 26 July 2016 - 01:24 AM, said:

I can say this, were I a United States citizen the only candidate in this entire race I would ever have felt comfortable voting for was Bernie Sanders.

That's true of me too, but that's the thing about politics right? The vast majority of the time, you're voting for people who you're not 100% comfortable with. During this particular election, we happened to have an actual human being among the choices, and not getting him sucks. But aside from him, the election is otherwise just the normal choice between a mixed bag and downright evil. Same choice we always have. It seems worse because we finally had someone good to contrast it with, but it's not really.

That isn't to downplay how bad Trump is, it's just to say that recent-history Republicans in general aren't any better. They're all walking disasters, and the American decline has been cumulative and cooperative at their hands (along with any spineless Dem willing to lean right of the dial).

Yes, I agree with you completely in this statement, I certainly understand why having to settle for a 'mixed-bag', feels worse in comparison because Bernie Sanders was as you say 'an actual human being'. My question really is about whether the sentiment engendered by this feeling that settling would be that much worse than usual is really going to cause enough people to take what would essentially be disastrous action in not voting for Hillary. I can understand that many would be doing so with a measure of disgust, but surely such feelings pale in comparison to a United States ran by Donald 'Right-wing nut-job' Trump? So not having my finger on the pulse of sentiment among Democrat voters in the United States, I ask here, whether you personally (and that 'you' is all American citizens on here, not others, I obviously am not aware where everyone is from) believe that anti-Hillary sentiment among Bernie supporters particularly is likely to hand the most powerful office on earth to a sexist, racist, narcissistic maniac?

This post has been edited by WinterPhoenix: 26 July 2016 - 02:10 AM