US Elections: Post-Mortem Blame Games

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

27 minutes ago, drawkcabi said:

SNIP

Great post. I'd consider myself a leftie, but much of the left wing bulls**t has turned me right off in recent years. All of the incidents you mentioned stick in my gut and make me angry, because of the assumption that one opinion is correct and anything else is backwards, or even evil.

 

[Zorral]

40 minutes ago, drawkcabi said:

My $.02:

Forgive me if I repeat anything other posters have all ready said, I can't keep up with this thread or these threads.

Let me begin by bringing up a term that when used derogatorily, is despised by most here: Social Justice Warrior. Let me say that I think championing social justice is noble and I support it, want to ally myself with any who are fighting for it, but I also believe there is an extreme type of SJW out there that isn't a true SJW but a faux one. But I also think it says something that I feel like I need to walk on eggshells bringing this up here for fear of getting my head chewed off.

In a time when we've recently had:

Comedians proclaim they will no longer play college venues due to how they are treated and restricted, and not just the more edgy ones but Jerry Seinfeld FFS.

College professors under fire not for trying to quell the speech of students but for defending their own free speech.

Milo Yiannopoulos, who I think is a major asshat, but when thinking of an appearance he made at college I don't think of the bullshit he said but of the annoying person Jigglypuff (where I know I should not but can't help but giggle snort at the moniker she was given) who wouldn't even let him spew his bullshit at a venue he was invited to.

Someone cheapens the term "sexual harassment" by screaming it at a man who does not touch her, does not go near her, does not interact with her until she interacts with him, only tells her his name is "Hugh Mungus".

Another person shouts sexual harassment at someone for only saying "Hello" to her as she walks by.

Someone throws a fit at a Lift driver (of Asian heritage as if that should matter) and is offended by a hulu girl statue on his dashboard.

Halloween costumes and every day stylistic choices like wearing dreadlocks are made into big issues and termed "cultural appropriation".

A movie comes out where respected, established or, at the least, non political critics (Richard Roeper, AVGN) are charged with bigotry and or misogyny for simply not liking or not wanting to see it, when in their entire arguments they never claimed they didn't like it because it starred women. Also, while it can't be decidedly proven it has been suggested by more than a few that other critics felt afraid to honest review for fear of backlash.

 

Aside from the issue of free speech rights, I'd agree with anyone who said these incidences should take a far back seat to the issues of real misogyny, racism, homophobia, bigotry, and prejudice. However in part due to social media and the internet making it much easier to learn about these incidences and the frequency they're happening, they take on a collective weight.

I know I am very susceptible to the clickbaity nature of it all on YouTube. I think that's why when I go on YouTube I get all these "recommended for you" videos by people like Sargon of Akkad, Undoomed, tl;dr, Bearing, Mundane Matt and others. Who, by the way, have all copied off each other by having these stupid semi-animated avatars they've created to do their talking for them. Only Mundane Matt of them all I don't think is a complete jerk and who I can agree with maybe up to 50% of the time, also the only one of the ones I mentioned that doesn't have one of those stupid avatars (I just find them annoying, but I digress).

Here's my point though. These YouTube content makers, they are secular and with many of their views I'd call them liberal. They just have found a niche going after SJW. And they are very popular. So many of their videos have thousands of "likes" compared to maybe a few hundred "dislikes". If you wade through the cesspool of YT comments you see so many people coming off as having similar mindsets.

 In 2012 we had react compilations of Republican, GOP, or Romney voters upset at the results of that election that many of us (ashamedly raises hand) took a measure of delight in seeing them in pain. This time I don't see many videos titled Clinton voters or Democrat voters or Progressive voter react compilations but a great many SJW react ones.

Now all during this election season, whoever got the nomination, whether it was O'Malley, Bernie, or HRC, I knew I'd be voting for them against any of the GOP candidates and most definitely Trump. I never once wavered or hesitated from that train of thought.

But I also remember thinking to myself months before the election, maybe even years before, the liberal base are turning people off. Now, do I also think and have thought that many are taking advantage of these incidences to let their true bigotry and prejudices shine? Absolutely! The KKK, Stormfront people, many of the Alt+Right would never, not a snowball's chance in hell, would ever have been a Democrat/Progressive/Liberal voter. But I do believe that there have been some liberal voters that have been turned off by so much leftist bullshit. I need to reiterate that I personally believe that this left bullshit takes a WAY far back backseat to the Alt+Right, racist, homophobic, transphobic, misogynist bullshit. I get irritated when I see some of the bullshit on the left, I get sick when I see it on the right. What I feel is that there are those that maybe are not (or wouldn't be) racist or misogynistic, they've gotten too frustrated with the crap on the left, have taken it too personally, and have sided with the other side because they now hold a grudge against these faux SJW's.

I think these types of people are fair minded, liberal minded, but have gotten their sense of fairness skewed because maybe being white and straight and mostly men it has impeded their realization of the depths of unfairness minorities still face. What I don't know is if they are significant or insignificant to why HRC lost, I can only give my conjecture which also includes a belief that in the post election Democratic post mortem should seriously be looked at.

The Democrats, liberals, progressives, should not have to feel the need to cater to these "lost souls" to put their needs in front of the needs of other minorities, but I think it would behoove them to acknowledge that their side has gone way over the line in some instances. I think that would go a LONG way to mending some fences.

I don't know where that line is exactly, I don't know where it should be divided between what is reasonable and unreasonable. Condemning blackface or wanting the Washington Redskins to change their name, between that on one side and wanting no one to dress up as an Indian for Halloween or condemning a white kid wearing dreadlocks on the other, for me there's a clear demarcation. But there are more nuanced arguments and questions that can make it less clear. I think having discussions about it and maybe some acknowledgement would behoove us.

There are many true social justice warriors out there, more than faux ones, but by not speaking against or making it an effort to reign it in sometimes, it could be encouraging the extreme side to grow. To believe that if speaking out for the right to be called a they or ze or hir is good then speaking out to take away someone's right not to believe that is even better.

There needs to be some ownership on the left for the more extreme activists. Many hated the "Not all men" meme, there shouldn't be a "Not all progressives" meme when someone says all white people are racist because they are white or other extreme views espoused.

Again, other societal problems do take precedence, but if you don't want 2016 to happen again maybe this needs to be looked at, not catered to, but at least acknowledged.

So . . . you don't believe in broken windows policing, Giuliani's favorite -- he will probably be the next Attorney General.

And let me tell you HOW FRACKIN' HATEFUL it is to have men insisting you respond to them just coz they want you to, men you have never seen before in your life, and have NO REASON at all to talk to you.

A man in a supermarket asking an authentic question of a woman about a product in her basket, something like that, that's a normal social interaction between strangers, male - male, female - female, male - female.  IT IS OK.  A bit of information and maybe even enthusiasm about to cook something, totally cool. And then they go their separate ways to never meet again, unless, by chance at checkout.  But other shyte -- no way.

What in the world gives you the sense that you are entitled to invade a strange woman's space whenever you feel like it? And be resentful and angry because women don't want you to do it?  It's only degrees away from the shyte the president elect boasts of doing as a matter of course: grabbing her genitals.  What part about leaving a woman alone with her private thoughts and concerns do you not understand?  Why does this come up, over and over and over?  Because men who do this will not, do not, want to listen to what women want -- yet whine and whine that nobody can figure out what women want.

 

 

[The guy from the Vale]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

TKG,

It's not that simple and it is subject to Constitutional protection and controls.  If a Majority of people decided my wife and I need to divorce or if a Majority of people voted that my house should belong to my neighbor they should be laughed out of the room.  

Had Sec. Clinton won the election and Trump gotten a majority of the popular vote, would you be saying the same thing?

 

But the Presidential Election is not about individual rights. It is about (supposedly...) democratically electing the leader of the country. Individual rights should not be up to a vote. Who will or won't get to govern should.

 

And yes, I think a situation like this is ridiculous no matter who wins. It's just that the Democrats have been on the receiving end of that inherent unfairness twice in five elections now.

[Commodore]

Trump is awful but the left is crying wolf like this is the end of days. Rioting/protest from millennial snowflakes that have no memory before Obama and have never had their guy lose. 

He's just an American Berlusconi

[Lily Valley]

2 hours ago, zelticgar said:

Noticing a lot of comments on social media and message boards from parents being concerned about messaging the Trump victory to their younger children. A lot of angst in the 8 to 12 year old range around how to help them overcome their fear of a Trump Presidency. 

Maybe I'm crazy but how is it possible that you let your kids get that attached to the political process? At what point do you step back and make sure they understand well ahead of the process that no matter who wins, the world is going to move forward and things will likely be okay? Seems like a lot of parents projecting their own fear and anxiety on their young children. I personally think thats pretty messed up and a terrible thing to do to your kids. 

Zelt, I'm glad your daughters are not scared.  I really am.  Your family's experience is not universal.  By 8 I had already been grabbed by the pussy.  Girls that age have been watching this election very closely and hearing their parents tell them, "This is wrong.  This is not ok.  Nobody has the right to touch your body."  Except men do it anyway and the election shows that nobody cares.  And this is ONE of the problematic things about our President elect.  

1 hour ago, Mr Fixit said:

Again, overreaction. 

I am not saying HRC is unqualified (well, I don't think she is, honestly, but that's beside the point), I'm saying I'm having trouble with the narrative that she lost BECAUSE she is a woman and that it's a defeat for women everywhere. You know, the entire "it's her turn" shtick that was being peddled years back.

Mr. Fixit, you've missed the whole point.

[Chaircat Meow]

4 minutes ago, Commodore said:

Trump is awful but the left is crying wolf like this is the end of days. Rioting/protest from millennial snowflakes that have no memory before Obama and have never had their guy lose. 

He's just an American Berlusconi

There are a couple of right-wing commentators who also seem convinced Trump is the long prophesised Caesar who ends the Republic. David Frum is being quite noisy about this. Andrew Sullivan too.  

[drawkcabi]

10 minutes ago, Zorral said:

So . . . you don't believe in broken windows policing, Giuliani's favorite -- he will probably be rgw next Attorney General.

 

I'd say that scares me shitless if Arpaio as Sec of Homeland Security, Gingrich as Sec of State, Pence as VP, and Trump as Prez didn't have all the fear rubbed raw and numb in me.

[The guy from the Vale]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

But they will have significantly less influence because they can be ignored in favor of the large metro areas I mention that have completely different cultures from Rural areas.  

But now, the urban areas are the ones who are ignored even though they have completely different cultures. If anything, it's worse because it ignores the will of more people than the alternative would.

[drawkcabi]

32 minutes ago, Castel said:

My 2 cents:

I maintain that significant parts of the country could really give less of a shit about things like the Ghostbuster kerfuffle,and I think this election has proven that many of these top comedian-pundits that are idolized on the Left may be gods to leftist Millenials but plenty of other people don't give a shit. Everyone is using this election as an opportunity to legislate issues that are dear to their heart ("Democrats lost cause they did this thing I didn't like) but not necessarily important to the actual places the race swung at all. Or rather, there's little evidence for it. The Democratic party doesn't actually belong to those people, anymore than the GOP belongs to some of the more secular people with degrees they can appeal to in the suburbs, or all of the policy types from the GWB administration that threw everything they had at Trump. It's one piece of the puzzle.

Now, it's the exact sort of thing people who visit this sort of webforum care about and notice,so they'll export that unto the results of the election cause it better makes their case, but it is dubious, as things stand. 

I might change my mind if a lot of evidence comes out of this (we can go over the exit polls in the pivotal states) but it seems to me that everyone thinks that they're writing a sober 2012 post-Romney-loss post-mortem when what's happening is far more reactionary.

I don't know what's insignificant or significant in all this. I only know what I felt, and I know it contributed to the panic I was feeling off and on prior to Nov. 8. Take it all with a grain of salt if you wish. $.02 cents is only worth $.02.

35 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Drawkcabi,

Great post.  The lose of nuance in favor of political purity shoudl concern us all, in my opinion.

Thank you Scot, that means a lot coming from you. I tried to balance making my point with also making it clear where my I felt priorities should be.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

21 minutes ago, Zorral said:

So . . . you don't believe in broken windows policing, Giuliani's favorite -- he will probably be the next Attorney General.

And let me tell you HOW FRACKIN' HATEFUL it is to have men insisting you respond to them just coz they want you to, men you have never seen before in your life, and have NO REASON at all to talk to you.

A man in a supermarket asking an authentic question of a woman about a product in her basket, something like that, that's a normal social interaction between strangers, male - male, female - female, male - female.  IT IS OK.  A bit of information and maybe even enthusiasm about to cook something, totally cool. And then they go their separate ways to never meet again, unless, by chance at checkout.  But other shyte -- no way.

What in the world gives you the sense that you are entitled to invade a strange woman's space whenever you feel like it? And be resentful and angry because women don't want you to do it?  It's only degrees away from the shyte the president elect boasts of doing as a matter of course: grabbing her genitals.  What part about leaving a woman alone with her private thoughts and concerns do you not understand?  Why does this come up, over and over and over?  Because men who do this will not, do not, want to listen to what women want -- yet whine and whine that nobody can figure out what women want.

 

 

Zorral,

If anyone says "Hello" to someone else there is no requirement that you respond.  As such saying "Hello", in and of itself is not a form of harrassment, without something more, in my earnest opinion.  

[Fez]

6 minutes ago, Commodore said:

Trump is awful but the left is crying wolf like this is the end of days. Rioting/protest from millennial snowflakes that have no memory before Obama and have never had their guy lose. 

He's just an American Berlusconi

We'll see. I read one article making the comparison that Trump will either be Schwarzenegger, Berlusconi, or Mussolini. The last one is the tail risk that maybe isn't too likely, but the fact that it's any sort of possibility is concerning.

Also, even if Trump ends up mostly respecting democratic norms, he's still likely to pursue a lot of policies that liberals are going to really hate. Obama pursued a lot of policies that conservatives really hated, but many of them were on the principle of thing, they didn't impact their daily life. Trump could seriously impact daily life for some people, depending on what he decides to focus on doing. And its pretty understandable that they people who would impacted are pretty terrified.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 I'm at the Blame Game stage. Have moved on from the electorate to the DNC and Hillary's campaign specifically. The Nevada dust-up stands out. Complete failure to extend the olive branch in an attempt to unite the party. Wasserman joining the Clinton campaign immediately after resigning from the DNC is another big one. Lastly, the choice of Tim Kaine as a running stands out. Tim Kaine? Who the fuck is Tim Kaine? Tim Kaine can't even tell you who Tim Kaine is. This ticket needed some personality desperately. 

[James Arryn]

Hello being degrees away from pussy grabbing seems, er, a bit off to me.

[drawkcabi]

32 minutes ago, Zorral said:

So . . . you don't believe in broken windows policing, Giuliani's favorite -- he will probably be the next Attorney General.

And let me tell you HOW FRACKIN' HATEFUL it is to have men insisting you respond to them just coz they want you to, men you have never seen before in your life, and have NO REASON at all to talk to you.

A man in a supermarket asking an authentic question of a woman about a product in her basket, something like that, that's a normal social interaction between strangers, male - male, female - female, male - female.  IT IS OK.  A bit of information and maybe even enthusiasm about to cook something, totally cool. And then they go their separate ways to never meet again, unless, by chance at checkout.  But other shyte -- no way.

What in the world gives you the sense that you are entitled to invade a strange woman's space whenever you feel like it? And be resentful and angry because women don't want you to do it?  It's only degrees away from the shyte the president elect boasts of doing as a matter of course: grabbing her genitals.  What part about leaving a woman alone with her private thoughts and concerns do you not understand?  Why does this come up, over and over and over?  Because men who do this will not, do not, want to listen to what women want -- yet whine and whine that nobody can figure out what women want.

 

 

 

I was caught dumbfounded if this even was directed at me but I quess it was because it was edited onto the post that quoted me.

I don't or would never insist anyone respond to me if I said "Hello". If I said "Hello" to anyone and they ignored me I wouldn't think twice and go about my business. If I said "Hello" to someone as they walked on by, not making any deliberate movement in their direction, and they went off on a tangent screaming harassment at me I'd think they were psycho.

But I guess even tip-toeing around with my best effort some ideas is enough to make me only degrees away from the shyte president elect. Respectfully discussing thoughts and ideas is a bad thing. Good to know.

[Ariadne23]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Lastly, the choice of Tim Kaine as a running stands out. Tim Kaine? Who the fuck is Tim Kaine? Tim Kaine can't even tell you who Tim Kaine is. This ticket needed some personality desperately. 

He seems like a nice guy I guess? But really, the campaign's notion that they just needed a blue chip acceptable VP who wouldn't bring any negatives was...not insightful. Hillary? You kinda coulda used some help inspiring your base. Bernie or Warren would have, in retrospect, been better picks. The campaign was sorely lacking in positives; it wasn't already so awesomesauce for everyone that she just needed to not screw anything up and coast to victory.

But again, this theory hinges on turnout data.

[James Arryn]

Also, we went the entire 20th century without a president losing the popular election, but now 2 of the last 3 have done so. This seems fucked to me. True or false; the electoral college makes some votes more important than others?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

38 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

 

But the Presidential Election is not about individual rights. It is about (supposedly...) democratically electing the leader of the country. Individual rights should not be up to a vote. Who will or won't get to govern should.

 

And yes, I think a situation like this is ridiculous no matter who wins. It's just that the Democrats have been on the receiving end of that inherent unfairness twice in five elections now.

No, it is about "fairly" electing the President.  The Question is whether it is fundamentally unfair to depend on 6 major metropolitian areas without considering the views of the large number of people who live outside those areas but wouldn't have to be considered if the EC were eliminated.

Different urban areas are similar by virtue of being Urban and as such will have some similarities in their concerns.  Taking out the EC removes Rural concerns from consideration in the Presidential election.

[Commodore]

if going by the list leaked to Buzzfeed, my preference would be

AG: Sessions

Commerce: abolish the dept

Agriculture: abolish the dept

Education: abolish the dept

Energy: abolish the dept

HHS: abolish the dept

Homeland Security: abolish the dept, fold into DoJ

Interior: Palin

Defense: Talent

State: Bolton

Treasury: Hensarling

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

22 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

But now, the urban areas are the ones who are ignored even though they have completely different cultures. If anything, it's worse because it ignores the will of more people than the alternative would.

Urban areas are hardly ignored in the US in favor of Rural interests.  Eliminating the EC would mean campaigning outside of major metro areas would be unnecessary to win the election.

[Castel]

26 minutes ago, drawkcabi said:

I don't know what's insignificant or significant in all this. I only know what I felt, and I know it contributed to the panic I was feeling off and on prior to Nov. 8. Take it all with a grain of salt if you wish. $.02 cents is only worth $.02.

Sure,it's immediate reactions right now. 

I'm just more on the skeptical end. It's clear that the next Democrat will clearly have to do better with many groups, I'm just not sold that the cures and ills people are focusing on. Everyone is already focusing on the outright "smug" liberals who just dismissed the people who voted "wrong" as stupid, but there should be concern of a different sort; where even the attempts to look outside one's paradigm project it back unto the rest of the nation. There are also blinders and biases there.

But, the good new is: we'll see. In a little while you'll have more data than you can process on the pivotal states Clinton lost. I can't wait for the books and HBO specials. Game Change 3.0?