US Elections: Post-Mortem Blame Games

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

i'm curious how the people that saw Trump as significantly worse, but stuck their noses up at the idea of voting for Clinton are feeling right now? 

[butterbumps!]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

There is a type of vote that I'm wondering if others are considering?  I'm calling it the "middle finger vote" (MFV).  How many votes this year were MFV's from people tired of being labeled as "racist, homophobic,... etc,"?  

This is not to say that some of these people do not have such dendancies.  This is to ask if the habit of some to loudly call the milder of such folk out is not amplifying the MFV and hurting the causes the people calling out want to further?

As I have said for a very long time you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.  Further, while people are passionate about advocacy if their passionate advocacy is counterproductive why continue with counterproductive tactics?

I think I might have touched on this a bit in the last thread.   I do think there’s different types and intensities of biogotry.   And I’d tend to agree that loudly defining all people who hold any bigoted ideas as “racists” or “misogynists” is not really the right way to go, practically, as well as ethically.   Not to go all ASOIAF here, but I’ve never particularly agreed with Melisandre’s “the whole onion is rotten” way of thinking, and frankly, I’ve found people who have committed far worse crimes than “being a racist Trump supporter” not wholly reprehensible people.   I think bigotry is reprehensible.  But I don’t think everyone who expresses bigoted thoughts is necessarily reprehensible, and I think labeling them as such is not a particularly sophisticated way of thinking and gets us nowhere.

That said, I am highly suspicious of tone policing arguments.   Like Mormont said, so much of that pushback amounts to “you can express yourselves all you want, as long as you do so in a way that’s acceptable to us.”   Not only does having to operate within this parameter feel endlessly demoralizing, I’m not convinced it’s actually that effective in reforming people’s beliefs. I think it might even be a little counter productive, and serve to perpetuate the problematic ideals it purports to reform (much like Ivanka’s disingenuous “feminism,” for example).     I thought this short Vox piece did a decent job of making some arguments about this.

I think the bigger issue is that a lot of people out there who hold problematic views simply do not want to listen, no matter how sweetly the message might be delivered. 

1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I think its very much more about modern city living society vs more tradition rural society. Us modern humans living in cities need women to be more active workers, performing work equally to men, be less interested in having children and more interested in their careers. Those things don't apply in a more traditional rural setting. The difference is our 'City' rules are the ones that are now seen to be correct, and traditional family roles are seen as backwards and flat out wrong.

A large proportion of the population would disagree with that however it seems. 

There is a big divide between rural values and city values, but that doesn’t mean we should just accept problematic views simply because it’s a product of a different values system.  

I’m not really sure how accurate your statement that women in cities need to work while country women are able to stay out home.   Is it the product of economic necessity, or does valuing traditional gender roles lead more to the condition in certain areas of the country?    The liberal view of the situation is that any woman (or man) should be able to choose the lifestyle that suits her and her family best, and not be dictated by conforming to, or eschewing, traditional gender roles.  

59 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

The data is not in yet, but I think it might turn out to be that a lot of white women did not vote. 

I think people thought Hillary was safe enough because of the polling and didn't really want to vote for her personally.

Probably would have been a good idea to do an ad spot on how it would feel to check that box for the first female president as a historic life memory.

Or it could be that 50+ % of women actually like that asshole and I'm having a hard time facing that, but I'm holding out for the voter turnout data first.

Yea, that’s a good point, we don’t have the final numbers.   It will be a little heartening if she does end up with a majority of that vote.  But the fact he has a robust percentage of that voting bloc makes me very sad.
 

 

[Mr Fixit]

25 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Nah, I enjoy it.  

My problem has always been what I see as your continued apology for Putin.  You have come out and said you are not supportive of his action in Ukraine.  I applaud that.  I'm not "rah rah, American Hegemony" any more than I am "rah rah, Russian Hegemony" I just don't see any other power strong enough to stand up to Russia if Russia chooses to flex besides the US.  So if you think I don't recognize problems with American imperialism you are misreading what I say.  

My views with regard to the US and NATO are truely that the US and NATO are the lesser evil, not that they are purely good.

Fair enough. I just don't know where you see my Russian apology. Just because I think both sides have their faults and that in the last 20 years it's the US that spilled more blood in the international arena (which, you know, it has), doesn't mean I root for Putin or his methods of ruling. I don't want Russian notions of "democracy" and I don't want US aggressive imperialism. That only sounds as "Putin apology" to people who are way more partisan than they care to admit.

[Dr. Pepper]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

 

Republicans just elected a guy who spent his entire campaign openly berating and insulting women, Muslims, Mexicans, LGBTQ+ people, the disabled, and anyone else who had the temerity to disagree with him. Yet somehow the problem was the Dems not being nice enough to the one group he courted? That's not the lesson here. Anyone telling you it is, is just using this result to sell you on a viewpoint they already held and would have held no matter the result: you can only stand up for yourself on my terms.

Yes, well said.  

[TheKitttenGuard]

32 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

TKG,

If the tactics used damage the cause advocated how does continueing to use them further the cause advocated?

So this a Social issue W.W.C voted on and not Economics? White people are alright having a declining of living but if you just were not mean about they would accept.  

Also just ignore all the mean comments from  the other side.  More people voted against Trump but were not in a manner to help the E.C map. 

I am more doing what can be to show and demostrate how the policy is Racist and/or Sexist without personalize it.  

I do not think we should stop pointing out the nature of the policy if a person state to have Non-Racist rational for it supports.  It will be nice if that person other concerns are met but when a rational is something murky, emotional and personal like safety of your family it can be extremely hard.  They are also accepting and underlying premise though they may not personally agree is really terrible policies stand for too long of a time.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Butterbumps,

I'm not making a "Tone Argument".  I'm making an "effectiveness argument".  If, as I suspect the MFV was a big part in the Trump victory shouldn't that be a factor in the manner in which activists address others?  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

So this a Social issue W.W.C voted on and not Economics? White people are alright having a declining of living but if you just were not mean about they would accept.  

Also just ignore all the mean comments from  the other side.  More people voted against Trump but were not in a manner to help the E.C map. 

I am more doing what can be to show and demostrate how the policy is Racist and/or Sexist without personalize it.  

I do not think we should stop pointing out the nature of the policy if a person state to have Non-Racist rational for it supports.  It will be nice if that person other concerns are met but when a rational is something murky, emotional and personal like safety of your family it can be extremely hard.  They are also accepting and underlying premise though they may not personally agree is really terrible policies stand for too long of a time.

I don't know.  I suspect, as I've said, some large portion of Trump voters are MFV's.  The real question is how MFV's can be coopted or countered if they are, in fact, a big element in how Trump became President elect.

Again, I'm not making a "tone argument", I'm making an "effectiveness argument".  If the tactics used are hurting your cause is it not foolish to continue with the same tactics?

[butterbumps!]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Butterbumps,

I'm not making a "Tone Argument".  I'm making an "effectiveness argument".  If, as I suspect the MFV was a big part in the Trump victory shouldn't that be a factor in the manner in which activists address others?  

Oh no I know, but you're arguing that sweeter tone will yield greater efficacy.    I'm not that confident that route is more effective, and have concerns it might even be a bit counterproductive.  It becomes an issue of "advocate, but only if you stay within the parameters we set".   I think we have a case where a lot of angry people do not want to listen.   

[Castel]

1 hour ago, DaveSumm said:

 So what's the Democratic Party equivalent? Why all this talk of Hillary being 'foisted' on us if it's so easy to take control of a party?

If you want to be charitable you can say that Hillary had far more obvious institutional support (and the concept of superdelegates) than anyone in the GOP process and the field wasn't split either.

Or you could argue that plenty of people were just bitter before and now that Clinton lost (and the Wikileaks stuff) they have full rein to run around being loud about it. Because Clinton spent years gathering establishment support she "cheated", because New York made you commit to being a Democrat months in advance in order to influence the election of a Democratic nominee someone "cheated" and so on.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Oh no I know, but you're arguing that sweeter tone will yield greater efficacy.    I'm not that confident that route is more effective, and have concerns it might even be a bit counterproductive.  It becomes an issue of "advocate, but only if you stay within the parameters we set".   I think we have a case where a lot of angry people do not want to listen.   

There is truth to that.  And the question is can a significant portion of the MFV's be convinced they shouldn't be MFV's.  I know that 14 years ago when I came this place I was much more conservative.  I know that calm reasoned arguments have worked with me.  That said, I'm one person.  

YMMV.

[Jaxom 1974]

2 hours ago, SerPaladin said:

If Obama doesn't pardon Hillary, I'm hoping Trump pardons her on his first day. No one needs to see any more of her on their news. 

Not likely. I do believe I heard this morning he intends to continue having her and her emails investigated at part of his first 100 days...and if he doesn't deliver her to prison, the majority of his rabid supporters will turn on him making 2018 a new wave of tea party like primarying as those hardcore people look to get people in place to tear him down or force him into promised action...same with the wall and immigration and banning muslims...

 

That's my fear in any case.  And perhaps that's part of the rumor of the filibuster staying for the time being, to help the Senate with a modicum of ammunition?

[Commodore]

Trump got fewer votes than Romney (and fewer white voters) so all the blame lies with Hillary and her supporters not showing up (rather than racism/sexism)

[zelticgar]

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. 

[Fragile Bird]

35 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

i'm curious how the people that saw Trump as significantly worse, but stuck their noses up at the idea of voting for Clinton are feeling right now? 

I keep thinking about Susan Sarandon proudly saying she doesn't vote with her vagina. And that Trump might be better for America than Clinton.

[TheKitttenGuard]

6 minutes ago, Commodore said:

Trump got fewer votes than Romney (and fewer white voters) so all the blame lies with Hillary and her supporters

More people voted for Hillary.

In a Democratic Process the person with the most votes is the one that is suppose win.

The Presidential election is not a Democratic process.

Republicans are fine with voting for some who espoused some vile ideas and employed people who have them as well.  Being a good Republican is not a virtue.

[Ariadne23]

12 minutes 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. 

What I'm reading about that is more like a lot of mothers took their daughters with them to vote for the first female President to share that history with them, and now have to explain that she didn't win. 

Also, kids at a certain age notice that Trump does and says things that they're taught are bad things to say and do, and that's confusing for them.

Beyond that, some of those kids are personally dealing with the loss of the taboo status of racist, sexist, anti-LBGT comments at school, or even from adults. There's a resurgence of strangers telling racial and ethnic minorities to go back where they came from. If you're a Muslim kid, the President-elect is literally saying you should be banned from the country. If you're Latino, the President-elect has said you are from a community of rapists and murderers. And do you really think 12 year olds haven't heard "grab them by the pussy?" If you're 8-12, and younger even, you've definitely heard about some of that. Kids and adults may have said some of that stuff to you, or your friends.

There's only so much ugliness you can shield your kids from when the world has gone ugly.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

More people voted for Hillary.

In a Democratic Process the person with the most votes is the one that is suppose win.

The Presidential election is not a Democratic process.

Republicans are fine with voting for some who espoused some vile ideas and employed people who have them as well.  Being a good Republican is not a virtue.

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?

[Fragile Bird]

6 minutes 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. 

Are you not being rather unrealistic?  Children watch a lot of television, and even if they aren't watching CNN they saw commercials for the news with the latest election highlights and, of course, they saw ads. And they go to school, where the election would have been discussed in Social Sciences class or whatever the they call it these days.

And finally, there would be the bullying.  Bullying has already been identified as a serious social issue, long before this election.  The bullying by Trump seems to have freed many parents, and by their example, children to bully their non-white classmates.  My facebook page regularly has posts from American friends talking about the sheer nastiness their children have been facing as Trump's words have emboldened others. Numerous people said they were keeping their children out of school on Wednesday, for fear of attacks they might face.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

One of the main points of the electoral vote system is to avoid a few, big states dominating the will of people living thousands of miles away in the heartland, who have a very different way of life to them.

In the end, the electoral college is the compromise needed to keep the diverse, massive land that is the United States together as one country. The alternative is indeed that states like California break away and go their own way. Somehow I don't see that happening.

Yes, and that in turn goes back to the fact that the USA isn't actually nation state, but rather a union of different states. 

Reading these boards I've gotten the impression that many people here seem to think that the nation state is an outdated concept nowadays, so you'd think that they'd be happy that the USA uses such vibrant, alternative methods of governing instead; ensuring that even minority groups across the union get significant influence over how the federal government is organized. 

Surprisingly, that doesn't seem to be the case. 

[Fragile Bird]

@zelticgar

Something I saw on my Facebook home page.

If you have no concerns for your children after this election, you are a person with white privilege.