Apt, on 10 November 2016 - 05:32 PM, said:
QuickTidal, on 10 November 2016 - 04:55 PM, said:
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