[Mentalist]

Apt, on 10 November 2016 - 05:32 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 10 November 2016 - 04:55 PM, said:

John Scalzi wrote a post about voting for Trump. Worth a read.

Had to stop after that HBO analogy.

He completely ignores the problem of there being a two party system. What he's arguing is choosing between a good thing and a bad thing, when in fact, in a two party system it's more like a bad thing or a different bad thing.

Trump the person may be garbage, but Trump the Republican represents a political party that are caretakers of a great many issues that republican voters are very passionate about. So, rather than giving up what they believe are core polictical values, they choose to elect a terrible person. Hoping that at least they have to pay less taxes or what ever.

The rhetoric in this Scalzi guys blog is the exact bullshit that has lead America to where it is now. Instead of moving towards greater understanding and finding a middle ground, even after the election is done, this guys wants to continue a political mudthrowing contest that has no constructive outcome. Nobody republican is going to agree with him and all his democrat readers are going to sagely nod their heads. That article is basically pandering to an audience of like minded individuals.

You are missing the point. Scalzi isn't saying "everyone that voted Trump is racist"
He is saying "everyone that voted Trump (for whatever reasons) felt their reasons were serious enough to allow them to ALSO endorse the racist, sexist, etc rhetoric.

No, this does not make all his supporters "racist". But yes, it means they are willing to endorse such statements, as long as issues XYZ that they REALLY care about are addressed.

Yes, this is the inherent flaw of a 2 party system, where both sides are loose coalitions of multipl interest with a VERY loosely defined "ideological alignment".

Does that all of a sudden mean you can't talk about it? Should this not be a sign that the system needs an overhaul?

Note: Scalzi is NOT telling Democrats "call all Trump voters racists". He is saying "call them out on endorsing racist rhetoric by their actions "

I'm sure there are SJWs who ARE frothing at the mouth and spewing generalizations. They can be just as rabid as the alt-right, and are as much of a problem. They are not the intended part of the conversation.

If you read the comments, what Democrats ARE saying to Trump voters is "it's now YOUR job to prove that you DON't support the crap YOUR candidate is spewing (and which you so far appear to tacitly endorse). YOU have to influence YOUR candidate to make sure he doesn't get a chance to implement this stuff you claim you don't support (but seem to have endorsed with your vote).

It IS an attempt at dialogue. One that is the misrepresented and over-generalized in order to strawman it and so greater discord.

This post has been edited by Mentalist: 10 November 2016 - 05:51 PM

[Aptorian]

But again I don't believe this is true.

By voting for a candidate or a party, you are not explicitly personally endorsing every single aspect or characteristic of this person or party. That's not how representative government functions. You could argue that implicitly that's what the person is doing, but by this logic every single action we take in our society from the food we eat, to the clothes we wear, to the electronics we use, becomes pretty damning. Do you support sweat shops and people working and living under incredibly shitty conditions? No? Well, you better never use a smart phone again.

You vote for the person who you like the most or dislikes the least. The one with the most ideas/values you agree with. There will always be parts of a party programme that you do not support but you are forced to ignore (NOT Accept) if you want other things you find important to come to fruition. That's the problem with politics. I find my choices lacking in the Danish party system and we have 9 or 10 parties to choose between currently. It has to be incredibly shitty to have Kang and Kodos to choose between and no alternative.

EDIT: And just to be clear I typically either vote blank (as in nothing) or vote for the reddest party on the ballot. I find the entire concept of representative democracy a waste of time and would much prefer a meritocracy or a technocracy.

This post has been edited by Apt: 10 November 2016 - 06:15 PM

[Nevyn]

Apt, on 10 November 2016 - 06:12 PM, said:

But again I don't believe this is true.

By voting for a candidate or a party, you are not explicitly personally endorsing every single aspect or characteristic of this person or party. That's not how representative government functions. You could argue that implicitly that's what the person is doing, but by this logic every single action we take in our society from the food we eat, to the clothes we wear, to the electronics we use, becomes pretty damning. Do you support sweat shops and people working and living under incredibly shitty conditions? No? Well, you better never use a smart phone again.

You vote for the person who you like the most or dislikes the least. The one with the most ideas/values you agree with. There will always be parts of a party programme that you do not support but you are forced to ignore (NOT Accept) if you want other things you find important to come to fruition. That's the problem with politics. I find my choices lacking in the Danish party system and we have 9 or 10 parties to choose between currently. It has to be incredibly shitty to have Kang and Kodos to choose between and no alternative.

Again, that is the point (the bold)

They disliked systemic racism less than they disliked an email scandal they didn't understand, and a charity scandal they didn't understand, and the nebulous concept of political elites in general. They prioritized their general malaise over preventing racist policies.

Oh, and all your consumer examples are absolutely endorsements. Yes, people in the western world would rather have a cheap smart phone than champion global labour standards. That is the priority they have chosen.

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 10 November 2016 - 06:27 PM

[QuickTidal]

Apt, on 10 November 2016 - 06:12 PM, said:

But again I don't believe this is true.

By voting for a candidate or a party, you are not explicitly personally endorsing every single aspect or characteristic of this person or party. That's not how representative government functions.

"Voting party lines" doesn't fly when the nominee is this type of individual. There are other options.

Apt, on 10 November 2016 - 06:12 PM, said:

You could argue that implicitly that's what the person is doing, but by this logic every single action we take in our society from the food we eat, to the clothes we wear, to the electronics we use, becomes pretty damning. Do you support sweat shops and people working and living under incredibly shitty conditions? No? Well, you better never use a smart phone again.

No, the difference is knowing and accepting. I KNOW my carbon footprint. I know that the things in my life that make my life easier (smartphones) are made under horrible conditions. I live with that. I try my best to mitigate the things I buy and or waste accordingly.

I'm not asking for those that voted for Trump to be called racists. I'm asking for them to OWN the fact that they voted in a guy who has shown himself to be a racist, sexist, homophobe. They don't have to subscribe to any of his rhetoric or display it...but they need to own that they voted in a man who does indeed spout that rhetoric, and are thereby endorsing that it's okay as long as they get the other things they want from his presidency.

That's what Scalzi's post is about. He's not calling for pitchforks, but is opening a discussion with those that voted for Trump about how that makes them silently complicit in his rhetoric.

I voted for Trudeau here. But he does seem to support the Alberta pipeline and fracking (two things I feel are utterly detrimental to our environment)...but I accept those things because I feel like he will do good things in most other aspects of our country. I am VEHEMENTLY against things that affect our environment...and I still voted in a guy who is probably not going to change those two big Canadian fossil fuel contributors. Because I agreed with the rest of his platform...and because the other people in the race were worse. But I acknowledge and accept the fact that I have endorsed something that is harming our environment as a result of my vote.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 10 November 2016 - 06:31 PM

[Mentalist]

Apt, of course we support sweat shops. We're all part of the Golden Billion that enjoys the advantages the rest of the world can barely dream of-at their expense, whether we like the fact or not.

And yes, that is EXACTLY how politics works- by voting (endorsing) endorsing) a particular candidate/party program you are tacitly giving them a carte Blanche - or, a "mandate" to carry out ALL policies they listed on the program (including ones you may not support or care about) - unless you explicitly speak up and tell them not to . Which is what Scalzi is hoping to get Trump voters to say- they are the ones expected to break the mold and start a hypothetical "trump voters against racism/sexism/etc" movement - because right now, on paper, they support it. Untill they can show otherwise.

[End of Disc One]

You guys are making compelling cases for "don't vote."

[Aptorian]

Hmm, I actually think you are making good arguments. BUT I refuse to stop drinking Coca Cola, the taste is worth every drop of human suffering.

[QuickTidal]

Apt, on 10 November 2016 - 07:09 PM, said:

Hmm, I actually think you are making good arguments. BUT I refuse to stop drinking Coca Cola, the taste is worth every drop of human suffering.

You should stop drinking coca cola because it's like drinking draino and will shred your insides over time.

[Mentalist]

End of Disc One, on 10 November 2016 - 07:04 PM, said:

You guys are making compelling cases for "don't vote."

That's not the answer.
If you genuinely care , the answer is "get involved, try to change change system and die trying get jaded and join the system"

But for the overwhelming majority, this feels like it has next to 0 impact on their lives. And that's what we proudly call "progress"

[Nevyn]

End of Disc One, on 10 November 2016 - 07:04 PM, said:

You guys are making compelling cases for "don't vote."

Not voting at all represents an endorsement of "whatever anyone else wants".

By all means, don't vote. But then don't complain about the results.

[Vengeance]

End of Disc One, on 10 November 2016 - 07:04 PM, said:

You guys are making compelling cases for "don't vote."

You can choose not to vote. However then you are choosing to have no voice what so ever in the future direction of the country. Considering that our country was founded on the principal of allowing citizens to have a voice in the direction of the country rather then a far off king simply deciding. You are stating that you do not care for all of the sacrifices and fights that have gone on in our country to allow all to vote (Revolution,Sufferage, Civil Rights) and instead are going to be a petulant child and refuse to exercise a vote on whom you feel would be best of the available candidates to lead the country. If you don't like the candidates vote for someone who you do like. Run for an office your self become engaged. Face the problems and attempt to fix them. Not voting is not being an adult and refusing to take any responsibilities. If you don't vote then you have no basis for complaining about how anything is. You have revoked your right to complain until the next election.

I vote in every single election/primary. Be it local or national. I also go in for jury duty when I have to. Civic responsibility and engagement is necessary in a democratic society.

[amphibian]

People who are the most comfortable with the idea of a meritocracy or technocracy are the same people who don't need much of a safety net. They aren't the disabled, the poor, or the financially fragile. They also tend to not have families started.

I am doing three separate volunteer things to help disabled prisoners receive reasonable accommodations while incarcerated, to expose the hardships of poverty to college students better, and to help organize events for a local LGBTQ+ organization. Each of these is a small thing I can do to make sure the uncaring system driven mostly by rich white men - those who'd float to the top of meritocracies and technocracies right now - don't completely ruin the lives of the people these organizations and activities try to help.

[EmperorMagus]

amphibian, on 10 November 2016 - 08:54 PM, said:

People who are the most comfortable with the idea of a meritocracy or technocracy are the same people who don't need much of a safety net. They aren't the disabled, the poor, or the financially fragile. They also tend to not have families started.

I am doing three separate volunteer things to help disabled prisoners receive reasonable accommodations while incarcerated, to expose the hardships of poverty to college students better, and to help organize events for a local LGBTQ+ organization. Each of these is a small thing I can do to make sure the uncaring system driven mostly by rich white men - those who'd float to the top of meritocracies and technocracies right now - don't completely ruin the lives of the people these organizations and activities try to help.

That's too much of a generalization though. The people who overestimate their own abilities are also included in that group. Someone that says they would succeed in a meritocratic organization most likely won't in a true meritocratic society, because people with actual merit are too busy to talk about their own merit.

There is also that group of people who believe they are really great but those brownies are taking their jobs away, those want meritocracies too.

Basically what I'm saying is, a lot of the people who want meritocracies would be as fucked as the rest of humanity if such a system actually came to be.

Also regarding the PC thing I said above that some people disagreed with. I can say that despite my left leaning beliefs, I have real trouble controlling my mouth (or fingers right now) when talking with idiots. Someone who votes for Trump "to take muh country back" is an idiot to me by virtue of their beliefs. I don't care enough about their feelings to control myself. My point was that it's extremely hypocritical for Trump supporters to get offended when I call them names. After all, that's what this whole campaign has been about for Trump.

[D'rek]

I don't get what you guys are arguing...

QuickTidal, on 10 November 2016 - 06:30 PM, said:

I'm not asking for those that voted for Trump to be called racists. I'm asking for them to OWN the fact that they voted in a guy who has shown himself to be a racist, sexist, homophobe. They don't have to subscribe to any of his rhetoric or display it...but they need to own that they voted in a man who does indeed spout that rhetoric, and are thereby endorsing that it's okay as long as they get the other things they want from his presidency.

Every Trump supporter I've heard interviewed on the radio or TV in the months leading up to the election and since has owned to that fact.

I've heard way, way more "yeah, he said those things, which I don't particularly agree with, but repealing Obamacare and renegotiating NAFTA are so important I'm voting for him despite that." from Trump supporters than the few anecdotes about moronic comments on facebook.

Not that it changes anything. Most of the Trump supporter interviews I've heard were from CBC, and the interviewees were all eloquent, considerate and seemed quite reasonable people who simply had different political priorities... and then in the very next hour CBC will have yet another pundit on who says "This election is really about neo-nazis rising up." or "This election is really about uneducated hillbillies being duped." or "This election is really about angry anti-feminist men." or whatever.

I think a lot of people and media "on the left" have been sticking their fingers in the ears and shouting "la la la la la la Trump voters must be neanderthalic misogynistic racists there's no other explanation la la la la la la la la la la la la".

...as if it's just soooo inconceivable that an ordinary right-wing person might feel it is reasonable to accept a misogynistic candidate because they are the candidate that best adheres to their major political and economic beliefs like healthcare reform, immigration tightening, or global security.

...you know, the same way an ordinary left-wing person might feel it is reasonable to accept a corrupt candidate because they are the candidate that best adheres to their major political and economic beliefs like environmental protectionism, education, or reproductive rights.

[worry]

You're right. And it's not at all inconceivable. It's just inexcusable.

[Tiste Simeon]

OK to slightly change the subject can someone explain to me in fairly simple terms what the Dickens the electoral college is? I thought I understood it but how does it work when they view for some versus when the people vote for them? Seeing a lot of things about how she won the "popular vote" but not the electoral college vote. Is it like constituencies here? Where the real number of votes doesn't matter so much as how many you win in each place, ie you win the seat?

Which is a dumb system but it did mean UKIP only got one seat last election so silver linings and all that...

[Terez]

The story of this election is really simple: enthusiasm gap. Turnout is everything. There are very few people who will vote for either party interchangeably, so power swings are all about who shows up to vote.

Trump was unpopular among dependable Republican voters. That didn't affect his numbers at all, because those are the people who are going to vote for whoever the Republican is anyway, with very few exceptions. (Mostly high-profile party elites who are absolutely unrepresentative of the average voters.) Most dependable Republican voters hated Hillary more than they hated Trump.

Hillary was popular among dependable Democratic voters. That didn't help her, for the same reasons Trump's unpopularity with always-voters didn't hurt him.

Trump was extremely popular with right-wing types who don't always vote. Those people came out in record numbers.

Hillary was extremely unpopular with left-wing types who don't always vote, and she was also extremely unpopular with the aforementioned right-wing types who don't always vote. Thus, she didn't inspire the maybe-voters on the left to come out, but she did inspire the maybe-voters on the right to come out and vote against her.

538 is trying to play this off as a close race that just happened to tip in Trump's favor, but that's BS. And it was BS back in primary season when they were trying to paint Hillary as the more electable candidate. They absolutely failed to read the dynamic of this election, and they failed all year.

That said, 538 did better than most other stats analysis publications when it came to recognizing that Trump had a chance.

[Terez]

Tiste Simeon, on 10 November 2016 - 11:00 PM, said:

OK to slightly change the subject can someone explain to me in fairly simple terms what the Dickens the electoral college is? I thought I understood it but how does it work when they view for some versus when the people vote for them? Seeing a lot of things about how she won the "popular vote" but not the electoral college vote. Is it like constituencies here? Where the real number of votes doesn't matter so much as how many you win in each place, ie you win the seat?

Which is a dumb system but it did mean UKIP only got one seat last election so silver linings and all that...

Each state has an allotted number of electoral college votes. The popular vote in each state determines who gets the EC votes, so the overall national popular vote doesn't matter. Some states are dependably Democratic, some states are dependably Republican. Blue states and red states respectively. Other states are less dependable, and those are called swing states or battleground states.

http://www.270towin.com/

[Nevyn]

The electoral college is also an outmoded model based on pre technology days which leaves the (unlikely) potential for an election reversal. Namely each state sends real people to cast the electoral college vote and those people can pick someone they were not sent to. Some states have laws against it and it has never seung an election, but it is a stupid loophole that remains for no reason

[worry]

If you thought Trump was going to be gracious in his victory, and all the bile was just showmanship, you've got another thing coming (well, marginalized people have it coming, but you'll be able to watch it on TV).



The protests are illegitimate. The "media" (wink wink) are inciting them. Wonder what he means by that!