US Politics returns: the post-Election thread

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, ummester said:

Only if people take them the wrong way, like the Russians did. The argument is circular.

No, the argument is simple words, at this level, can and do (as I demonstrated) have impact.  Therefore, brushing aside the impact by claiming "words don't matter" is shortsighted at best.

[butterbumps!]

Here scot.    this other vox piece is making points similar to yours, offering suggestions to help communicate with those holding biases more civilly and effectively.    It's not really blaming the left for namecalling people into voting trump but offering a few ways to reverse the existence of bigotry in the us going forward.    http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/11/15/13595508/racism-trump-research-study

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, SerPaladin said:

This is so, so wrong. Rational, reasoned arguments may work for lawyers and engineers and other "head over heart" types, but they are a vast vast minority in the US.

You could barely get a mention of a policy for 18 months in this country. I was amused at the pages of discussion of the Baltic States you guys had. It was real, but so very few people that vote care.

For all Hillary's sizable policy advantage, the slogans were "I'm with Her" (women, vote for me, we will break the glass ceiling), and "Stronger Together" (community over individuality) and "Love Trumps Hate" (explicit appeal to heart, implicit that the other guys are hateful). For all Trump's populist rhetoric, the chants were "lock her up", and "build that wall", not "bring us jobs".

All emotions, all the time, the world is moved by marketers, not reason.

Not quite what I'm arguing.  Emotions are clearly impactful.  I'm saying emotional arguments have a larger chance of blowback for the person making the emotional appeal.  Therefore, the safer methodology is sticking to calm rational discussion.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Here scot.    this other vox piece is making points similar to yours, offering suggestions to help communicate with those holding biases more civilly and effectively.    http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/11/15/13595508/racism-trump-research-study

Butterbumps,

Thank you.  Very interesting.

[SeanF]

I thought this article by Sean Trende was very interesting.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/16/the_god_that_failed_132363.html

In effect, neither Republicans nor Democrats can expect to win automatically.

[Dolorous Gabe]

2 hours ago, ummester said:

And because you don't give a fuck, your mind is as closed as the racist. But it's your mind, not mine to save.

Some things are objectively wrong. I do actually believe in moral relativism but only within certain parameters and boundaries.

I have come to the conclusion that racism is a bad thing. Any sensible person has come to the same conclusion. There is no moral relativism when it comes to racism.

 

On the subject of anti-intellectualism and anti-PC possibly being factors in the world's general shift to the right: I guess it must have been tough for the KKK, what with all these annoying people telling them they're racists. And that works just the same for misogynists and xenophobes: how hard it must be for them to hear their opinions have a name with negative connotations.

I'll keep calling out racism, misogyny and xenophobia because I believe it is the right thing to do. But hey, I guess if one is offended by that then maybe one should go support a misogynistic xenophobe to disprove it. Oh wait.....

[BloodRider]

13 hours ago, Squab said:

Sounds almost like some are starting to believe in small government. I thought most here were big government.

Sounds like you hear what you want to hear.

[mormont]

48 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Mormont,

I will not get offer this "hobby horse" and I do believe there were many voters who flipped to Trump in frustration and anger.  I've said, for decades now, that reasoned rational interactions are a better way to win people over than screaming about how horrible they are.

You believe that, and that's fair enough. But you've said so over and over again, without providing any evidence or really developing the argument in any way. There's just this repeated belief in the magic words that we can surely find if only we try. I would invite you to consider that this type of dogged, dogmatic insistence (no matter how politely worded) turns just as many people off as letting one's annoyance show does.

Meantime, people are falling victim to hate crimes, a man who made his name publishing outright bigotry has just been appointed to the White House staff, and I see friends who are women/LGBTQ+/minorities/disabled and other minorities terrified that their rights are going to be torn away. Are you really saying this is down to OldGimletEye calling his racist cousin an idiot?

Of course it isn't. You've lost sight of the wood for the trees. The problem is far, far wider than good manners when confronting bigots. It's about the dominant group in US society feeling resentful about the whole direction of the journey towards equality. Talk about that, and you have my attention. Talk about the magic words, and you've lost it.

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You are not seeing my point.  I didn't coddle him.  I didn't meet him half way and compromise an agreement.  I said "You're wrong to worry about Sharia and here is why."  

What I didn't do is call him a "fucking redneck moron" for sharing this crap.  I didn't use in emotional insults which, while they may be cathartic for the person offering them, do nothing but encourage the person push the person being insulted to double down on their terrible position.

How is calmly saying "You're wrong and here's why..." in any way "appeasement" to the person offering the terrible meme or opinion?

Because sometimes it's so ridiculous, it doesn't even deserve any appearance of being a reasonable position. It deserves being ridiculed and mocked.

Of course a great deal depends on context, as most things do.

But, sometimes, the stuff I've seen or heard is just beyond the pale.

I've been a life long redneck. And, obviously, I know a lot of rednecks.

And I've on occasion used the term "redneck moron" when one of my follow rednecks says or does something eye rolling dumb. And sometimes my harsh methods have worked. With some of these folks, they won't respect you or your opinion unless you're willing to play a little hard ball. Now it isn't only about being harsh. You do actually have to have a credible argument of course.

In some cases, by harshly checking bullshit, the conversation has actually turned more polite. As I don't hear things like "libtard" or stuff that de-humanizes other people in the worst way possible. With respect to the Muslim thing, I've made it quite clear to many of my fellow rednecks, I do not take kindly to notions of collective guilt or punishment. I fucking loathe it, even if that hurts their conservative feelings. And I've pointed out to them the irony of the supposed party "rugged individualism" engaging in collective guilt.

Now how harsh I'm going to be depends on how ridiculous the other person is being. If they mess up something a lot of people could reasonably mess up I'm not going to be obnoxious or rude about it. I understand a lot of this stuff can be confusing and has to be parsed carefully and respectfully.

And of course, context often matters. Like say for instance an elderly aunt of mine that still uses the term "Negro". I'm not going to lecture her that the appropriate term now days is "African American" because I know her usage of that term comes down to the fact she wasn't able to get a good education, is older, and I know she is a kind person.

But, some of the stuff I hear is just ridiculous, like pictures comparing Obama to a primate or wacko conspiracy theories that suggest Obama is going to impose martial law before Trump takes office. With this crazy stuff, I'm gonna mock and ridicule it, because it deserves to be mocked and ridiculed.

[Ice Queen]

9 minutes ago, mormont said:

You believe that, and that's fair enough. But you've said so over and over again, without providing any evidence or really developing the argument in any way. There's just this repeated belief in the magic words that we can surely find if only we try. I would invite you to consider that this type of dogged, dogmatic insistence (no matter how politely worded) turns just as many people off as letting one's annoyance show does.

Meantime, people are falling victim to hate crimes, a man who made his name publishing outright bigotry has just been appointed to the White House staff, and I see friends who are women/LGBTQ+/minorities/disabled and other minorities terrified that their rights are going to be torn away.

And Trump just appointed another in the scumbag Frank Gaffney. I'm waiting for David Duke to get a Cabinet position.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Mormont,

I will not get offer this "hobby horse" and I do believe there were many voters who flipped to Trump in frustration and anger.  I've said, for decades now, that reasoned rational interactions are a better way to win people over than screaming about how horrible they are.

If that is so, how do you explain Hitler, Limbaugh, Brexit, Fox News -- AND Trump?  They came to power and consolidated it by screaming how horrible just about everyone is -- particularly women and progressives of every variety, or in the case of Hitler, Jews, and then by ever-upping the decibels.

The trolls do the same.  They know . . . .

 

 

[SeanF]

It's

22 minutes ago, mormont said:

You believe that, and that's fair enough. But you've said so over and over again, without providing any evidence or really developing the argument in any way. There's just this repeated belief in the magic words that we can surely find if only we try. I would invite you to consider that this type of dogged, dogmatic insistence (no matter how politely worded) turns just as many people off as letting one's annoyance show does.

Meantime, people are falling victim to hate crimes, a man who made his name publishing outright bigotry has just been appointed to the White House staff, and I see friends who are women/LGBTQ+/minorities/disabled and other minorities terrified that their rights are going to be torn away. Are you really saying this is down to OldGimletEye calling his racist cousin an idiot?

Of course it isn't. You've lost sight of the wood for the trees. The problem is far, far wider than good manners when confronting bigots. It's about the dominant group in US society feeling resentful about the whole direction of the journey towards equality. Talk about that, and you have my attention. Talk about the magic words, and you've lost it.

Racial resentment party explains Trump's victory, but notably, largely white districts in the mid West and Pennsylvania that backed Obama heavily in 2008, and a bit less in 2012, voted for Trump this time.  And, Trump did better among minorities than either Romney or McCain did.

[SeanF]

14 minutes ago, Zorral said:

If that is so, how do you explain Hitler, Limbaugh, Brexit, Fox News -- AND Trump?  They came to power and consolidated it by screaming how horrible just about everyone is -- particularly women and progressives of every variety, or in the case of Hitler, Jews, and then by ever-upping the decibels.

The trolls do the same.  They know . . . .

 

 

Brexit won because people in the UK have been increasingly frustrated with the European Union.

[Dr. Pepper]

20 minutes ago, Zorral said:

If that is so, how do you explain Hitler, Limbaugh, Brexit, Fox News -- AND Trump?  They came to power and consolidated it by screaming how horrible just about everyone is -- particularly women and progressives of every variety, or in the case of Hitler, Jews, and then by ever-upping the decibels.

The trolls do the same.  They know . . . .

 

 

Yeah, this has been particularly frustrating, how progressive liberals are held to this strange standard when no one is pointing out the the right has been horrifically nasty, not just in their screaming but in the policy they push to marginalize people they scream about.  Sure, I think progressive libs have their issues in this department, but fuck everyone for giving these conservatives a free pass for all the shit they've done to stoke the flames, for the very harmful insults they have screamed over the years.  

[butterbumps!]

17 minutes ago, SeanF said:

It's

Racial resentment party explains Trump's victory, but notably, largely white districts in the mid West and Pennsylvania that backed Obama heavily in 2008, and a bit less in 2012, voted for Trump this time.  And, Trump did better among minorities than either Romney or McCain did.

You assume racial anxiety did not increase during, and in many ways in response to, Obama's presidency.  

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Not quite what I'm arguing.  Emotions are clearly impactful.  I'm saying emotional arguments have a larger chance of blowback for the person making the emotional appeal.  Therefore, the safer methodology is sticking to calm rational discussion.

I'm kinda torn on this subject. On one hand, I agree with Jonathan Chait that PC culture had gone too far and was stifling discourse on the Left, and I agree with Jonathan Haidt that identity politics is poison to a multicultural society, but when it comes to Trump...

I may disagree with speech codes on college campuses or "callout culture" on many Liberal parts of social media, but how can you not point out that Trump's behavior is beyond the pale, or "callout" Trump supporters who either support or ignore his misogyny and white supremacy? I mean I don't, because I avoid getting into arguments on facebook, but still.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

50 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Because sometimes it's so ridiculous, it doesn't even deserve any appearance of being a reasonable position. It deserves being ridiculed and mocked.

Of course a great deal depends on context, as most things do.

But, sometimes, the stuff I've seen or heard is just beyond the pale.

I've been a life long redneck. And, obviously, I know a lot of rednecks.

And I've on occasion used the term "redneck moron" when one of my follow rednecks says or does something eye rolling dumb. And sometimes my harsh methods have worked. With some of these folks, they won't respect you or your opinion unless you're willing to play a little hard ball. Now it isn't only about being harsh. You do actually have to have a credible argument of course.

In some cases, by harshly checking bullshit, the conversation has actually turned more polite. As I don't hear things like "libtard" or stuff that de-humanizes other people in the worst way possible. With respect to the Muslim thing, I've made it quite clear to many of my fellow rednecks, I do not take kindly to notions of collective guilt or punishment. I fucking loathe it, even if that hurts their conservative feelings. And I've pointed out to them the irony of the supposed party "rugged individualism" engaging in collective guilt.

Now how harsh I'm going to be depends on how ridiculous the other person is being. If they mess up something a lot of people could reasonably mess up I'm not going to be obnoxious or rude about it. I understand a lot of this stuff can be confusing and has to be parsed carefully and respectfully.

And of course, context often matters. Like say for instance an elderly aunt of mine that still uses the term "Negro". I'm not going to lecture her that the appropriate term now days is "African American" because I know her usage of that term comes down to the fact she wasn't able to get a good education, is older, and I know she is a kind person.

But, some of the stuff I hear is just ridiculous, like pictures comparing Obama to a primate or wacko conspiracy theories that suggest Obama is going to impose martial law before Trump takes office. With this crazy stuff, I'm gonna mock and ridicule it, because it deserves to be mocked and ridiculed.

OGE,
 

I agree a lot of it is ridiculous.  I also understand that it feels really nice to point out just how absurd some of this crap is.  I just think, at the end of the day, we are better served by saying "You're wrong and here's why..."  

That said, I cannot say it is never useful or productive to give someone a rhetorical "slap to the face" sometimes it will be effective.  However, I think, more frequently it's just going to prompt an angry indignent response.

[SeanF]

7 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

You assume racial anxiety did not increase during, and in many ways in response to, Obama's presidency.  

Perhaps, but Obama continues to enjoy high ratings, whereas Clinton has low ratings.  Had Obama been allowed to stand again, I'm sure he would have been the favourite in States like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania.

[Guy Kilmore]

Scott,

You and I have an advantage over some of the posters here when it comes to engaging bigoted views.  We are both white males of a particular religious backgrounds (I can't remember if you are Catholic or if you are Protestant).  We, I believe, are both able bodied.  We are both in the middle class.  As such, we are not the other.  We can afford to be polite when it comes to discussing these issues with others because we have many points of common cultural identity.  We can attach emotional significance and weight to our words that would be accepted by our audience that people of different backgrounds would find extremely challenging to do.

We had this conversation awhile ago and it is a multifaceted approach.  In that approach, one of the strongest things I can do for social change is utilize the advantages I have and advocate for those that do not.  This may not be possible for others.

ETA:  Sometimes what is polite conversation in one section of the country can be rude in others, same with certain demographics.  It can also very among peoples of different backgrounds.  My conversation and word usage varies between like my friends and the homeless population that I work with for instance.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

If that is so, how do you explain Hitler, Limbaugh, Brexit, Fox News -- AND Trump?  They came to power and consolidated it by screaming how horrible just about everyone is -- particularly women and progressives of every variety, or in the case of Hitler, Jews, and then by ever-upping the decibels.

The trolls do the same.  They know . . . .

 

 

None of these demagogs are purely "screamers".  They mix their emotional appeals with rational appeals to get their desired results.  What I'm suggesting is that rather than answer vitriol for vitriol we calmly explain why people are wrong.  You are less likely, in my opinion, to get an angry reaction if you go with rational argument than the emotional response.  
 

This is not to say you never get an emotional response to rational arguments.  I lost a number of right of center friends on FB making rational arguments against Trump