Author Topic: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump  (Read 15507 times)

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« on: June 24, 2016, 08:37:58 PM »
Interesting interview with a Trump supporter and a thoughtful response by the interviewer as to why he supports Senator Clinton (you'll need to read the article, since it takes a wider context that would be allowed for fair use, but certainly worth it, here is an excerpt).

Quote
For me personally, it's resistance against what San Francisco has been, and what I see the country becoming, in the form of ultra-PC culture. That’s where it's almost impossible to have polite or constructive political discussion.  Disagreement gets you labeled fascist, racist, bigoted, etc. It can provoke a reaction so intense that you’re suddenly an unperson to an acquaintance or friend. There is no saying “Hey, I disagree with you,” it's just instant shunning. Say things online, and they'll try to find out who you are and potentially even get you fired for it. Being anti-PC is not about saying “I want you to agree with me on these issues.” It's about saying, “Hey, I want to have a discussion and not get shouted down because I don't agree with what is considered to be politically correct.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/a-dialogue-with-a-22-year-old-donald-trump-supporter/484232/

« Last Edit: June 24, 2016, 08:46:10 PM by LetterRip »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2016, 08:43:21 PM »
Which goes back to Trump being a great candidate because he is such a terrible candidate. It is a giant middle finger at "the establishment" and its "politically correct" power base.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2016, 10:23:39 PM »
I think the writer's closing comments are illuminating. He's starting to "get it" on why I've personally had issues with a lot of the "social justice" activities that have been going on, in particular over the past 8 years, but really since the 1980's in many ways.

The "social justice warriors" have good intentions, and they probably have taken down a few people that did need it. But by the methods they're using, they're creating the very thing they're trying to destroy. Although he also still fails to understand the person he interviewed.

Quote
My correspondent has come to believe that political correctness is transforming American culture in a way that puts his interests at odds with activists who are pursuing social justice and Hispanic immigrants who might benefit from affirmative action. His perception of these changes is causing him to engage in zero-sum thinking. If identity-based tribalism is America’s lot, he intends to vote his group interests, whereas he was previously inclined toward a more individualist ethic.

That shift alarms me.

Neither the pursuit of social justice nor immigration policy nor relations among people of different ethnicities are inherently zero sum in nature. Quite the contrary, if sound policies and social norms are in place. If there is an uptick in white people shifting from a liberal mindset to a tribal mindset, something has gone very wrong.

What?

The correspondent’s words track concerns I’ve aired before.

In The Federalist, David Marcus argues that anti-white rhetoric is fueling white nationalism. I’ve previously warned that “encouraging a focus on white identity is a dangerous approach for a country in which white supremacy has been a toxic force,” an admonition that applies to the right and left in different ways. And on the subject of “political correctness,” I’ve posited that citizens who oppose Trumpism should “take a careful look at everything that falls under the rubric of political correctness; study the real harm done by its excesses; identify the many parts that are worth defending; and persuade more Americans to adopt those norms voluntarily, for substantive reasons, not under duress of social shaming or other coercion.”

Today’s correspondent is just one voter. Future opinion polls will say much more about how typical Trump supporters relate to political correctness and white identity. If it turns out that there are a significant number of people who are reacting to social-justice shaming and rhetorical anti-whiteness by shifting from supporting campaigns like Gary Johnson 2012 to campaigns like Donald Trump 2016, what then?

But to get back to the part he didn't get from his interviewee:

Quote
My correspondent has come to believe that political correctness is transforming American culture in a way that puts his interests at odds with activists who are pursuing social justice and Hispanic immigrants who might benefit from affirmative action. His perception of these changes is causing him to engage in zero-sum thinking. If identity-based tribalism is America’s lot, he intends to vote his group interests, whereas he was previously inclined toward a more individualist ethic.

Methinks the zero-sum is coming from the author in this case, albeit the interviewee did admit to self-interest in that case, and he is correct. Affirmative Action for college admissions that makes use of racial quotas is harmful to both him(as a white male), and to his wife(as a person of Asian descent), so they have personal experience as a basis to have that particular system as a particular pet peeve of theirs.

But that it managed to become a pet peeve just demonstrates why such practices can be harmful in the long term, even if it provides short-term gains. It will potentially make people hostile to other things they might otherwise have supported.

But in that one case(college admissions) the person interviewed was being consistent with the individualist response: Admissions should be done on the basis of the qualifications of the applicant, not based upon the race/religion/gender/creed of the applicant. They just happened to be intellectually honest and upfront about their knowing exactly who would benefit and who would lose out by making such a change.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #3 on: June 24, 2016, 11:02:38 PM »
You can argue that adherents to both sides of the political divide have blind spots.  Here's one:
Quote
Why? If false, Bill Clinton will not suffer any real consequences from this. There will be no risk of jail for Bill, which is what the biggest worry is for false accusations.
That completely misses the mark of what Trump is attempting.  He's not proposing that Bill be prosecuted, but diminishing his stature and by association disqualifying the candidate (Hillary) with thinly veiled accusations of moral failings and having escaped consequences for reprehensible actions.  It's an unprovable and likely false accusation, but it will resonate with a segment of the voting population who are already predisposed to look down on Hillary.

Quote
Having Trump in the White House would both give me more confidence to speak my own opinion and more of a shield from instantly being dismissed as a racist/xenophobe/Nazi (all three things I have been called personally).
This needs more explication.  Why would this single individual be accused of all those non-equivalent things?  We wouldn't expect him to see his own racist or xenophobic blind spots.  It sounds like he's looking for social acceptance for holding those views.

Quote
One thing I fear is that if Trump loses, it may be seen as the reverse of what I just said: that America rejected a non-PC candidate (especially if he loses overwhelmingly). Clinton's victory could be seen as a further vindication for the PC crowd that there is no tolerance for Trump's type of views, and I fear it will hit other right-wing views.
Uh, rejection of racist or xenophobic views isn't a vote for PC correctness, unless the person who says that feels comfortable holding those views and doesn't want to be censored or corrected for holding them.

This goes to the heart of the issue in the interview.  Being "PC" isn't a bias in the same way that being an atheist isn't a belief.  Either PC-correctness or outspoken atheism can go too far and be condemnatory of people who don't agree, but I find it hard to sympathize with anyone who objects to being called out for racism, xenophobia or any other reprehensible bias if they hold those views.

This article may explain how the person being interviewed thinks, but it doesn't excuse any socially prejudicial views he holds just because he defends himself.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #4 on: June 25, 2016, 12:06:09 AM »
Being "PC" isn't a bias in the same way that being an atheist isn't a belief. 

Uh, no.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #5 on: June 25, 2016, 05:43:36 AM »
This goes to the heart of the issue in the interview.  Being "PC" isn't a bias in the same way that being an atheist isn't a belief.  Either PC-correctness or outspoken atheism can go too far and be condemnatory of people who don't agree, but I find it hard to sympathize with anyone who objects to being called out for racism, xenophobia or any other reprehensible bias if they hold those views.

This article may explain how the person being interviewed thinks, but it doesn't excuse any socially prejudicial views he holds just because he defends himself.

Prejudice, pre-judicial, or pre-judgemental. The example given of Hulk Hogan is a good one, a fan of his showmanship who is unaware of, or indifferent towards, his politics, has his own set of prejudices to go up against expressly because of Hogan's politics and other statements that have since come to light.

Another way to frame the Political Correctness bandwagon into perspective is that it has become the current generations version of McCarthyism. Complete with (not so) secret (donor) lists, blacklisting, and the very public and active destruction of the lives of hundreds of people, all in the name of Social Justice and the desire to be inoffensive.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #6 on: June 25, 2016, 08:21:27 AM »
Thankfully I don't know much about the Hulk Hogan case other than it was backed by a billionaire with the express intent to drive a company he had a grudge against out of business.

Quote
Another way to frame the Political Correctness bandwagon into perspective is that it has become the current generations version of McCarthyism. Complete with (not so) secret (donor) lists, blacklisting, and the very public and active destruction of the lives of hundreds of people, all in the name of Social Justice and the desire to be inoffensive.
As I asked on another thread, do you think that this activity is something that conservatives don't do?

What do you think "public discourse" would be like if "the Political Correctness bandwagon" didn't exist?  Is there any value in social tolerance?  Should there be any cost to a public figure if they say things that are offensive?  Should you not know that they said it? Is it wrong of you to change your view of the person personally when you hear it?  Would McCarthy be on the side of people who denigrate all Muslims because Muslims are unAmerican, or on the side of those who oppose them because it's unAmerican to denigrate our religious freedoms, which is what Godless Communists were trying to do?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #7 on: June 25, 2016, 03:20:17 PM »
Thankfully I don't know much about the Hulk Hogan case other than it was backed by a billionaire with the express intent to drive a company he had a grudge against out of business.

"The Hogan Case" being referenced in this isn't directly tied to the Hogan vs Gawker court case. Hulk Hogan was caught out using some racial epithets and slurs. So now by extension, anyone who still expresses admiration for his showmanship in the past or otherwise expresses support for the man MUST be racist, right?

Quote
Quote
Another way to frame the Political Correctness bandwagon into perspective is that it has become the current generations version of McCarthyism. Complete with (not so) secret (donor) lists, blacklisting, and the very public and active destruction of the lives of hundreds of people, all in the name of Social Justice and the desire to be inoffensive.
As I asked on another thread, do you think that this activity is something that conservatives don't do?

What do you think "public discourse" would be like if "the Political Correctness bandwagon" didn't exist?  Is there any value in social tolerance?  Should there be any cost to a public figure if they say things that are offensive?  Should you not know that they said it? Is it wrong of you to change your view of the person personally when you hear it?  Would McCarthy be on the side of people who denigrate all Muslims because Muslims are unAmerican, or on the side of those who oppose them because it's unAmerican to denigrate our religious freedoms, which is what Godless Communists were trying to do?

Which "PC" Bandwagon? I don't object to trying to scrub certain words from the common vernacular and vocabulary that people use. I do object to turning people into social lepers on a one-off(especially if they're old enough to predate such lingual proscriptions, as people such as Hulk Hogan, and sadly Mel Gibson qualify for), or simply by association.

Which is where the assertion of the "Social Justice Warrior" manifestation of "Political Correctness" being this generations version of McCarthyism is coming from. Evidence doesn't matter, don't bother trying to explain your case. You've already lost as you've been convicted in the court of public opinion. You must be a witch, and you will be burned at the stake as a warning to the other heretics.

Whether or not McCarthy would agree with the aims of the "Social Justice Warriors" is immaterial, the methods are the same, even if the goals may be wildly different.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #8 on: June 25, 2016, 08:55:59 PM »
Quote
Which "PC" Bandwagon?
You're the one who introduced the phrase, so you should answer that question.  I was just quoting you.

Quote
Which is where the assertion of the "Social Justice Warrior" manifestation of "Political Correctness" being this generations version of McCarthyism is coming from. Evidence doesn't matter, don't bother trying to explain your case. You've already lost as you've been convicted in the court of public opinion. You must be a witch, and you will be burned at the stake as a warning to the other heretics.
You're introducing your own bias into the discussion.  I don't know what Hulk Hogan said, but we have learned after the fact that both Truman and Nixon said some awfully anti-semitic things while in the WH.  Does it change history's view of the two men to learn that they had such ethnically prejudiced views of an identified sub-group of the American population?  For some people it does, even though they were never called to testify on their beliefs.

There are slippery slopes on all sides of the tip of a moralized position.  If Mel Gibson believed horrible things about Jews and his father raised him to believe that the Holocaust never happened, does that change the fact that Mel has a winning smile?  No, but something should change by knowing those things and the only place where those judgments can be made is in the court of public opinion.  It's obvious that you have your own view of what some people say that bothers you and you're not afraid of sharing it with us.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #9 on: June 25, 2016, 09:05:04 PM »
"PC" attacks can go too far -- I had the experience a few weeks ago of being accused of being a "swimmer" (Straight White Male or SWM'er) and of "mansplaining" because I did not agree with the interpretation of a situation that someone was describing to me at a dinner party.

There is no religion, no philosophy, no set of ideas at all that are so pure that some people won't abuse them. 

What has hypercharged the right is the intentional amplification to a national news story every time some stupid bunch of college students somewhere conduct an abusive PC act.   

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #10 on: June 26, 2016, 12:05:59 AM »
What has hypercharged the right is the intentional amplification to a national news story every time some stupid bunch of college students somewhere conduct an abusive PC act.

Well, there were other things too, like the leaking of the Prop 8 donor list a few years ago, and it resulting in a serious of high profile cyber lynchings as certain people were identified as being on that list. (Which was the allusion to "(not so) secret lists")

Or the rhetoric that has been ongoing for a number of years now, and Hillary is bringing in her own set of cringe-worthy concerns going forward. For the past 8 years the refrain has pretty much been "You disagree with President Obama, the First Black President of the United States? You must be racist!" (Something that has had attention on this forum recently as well; there may be a basis for the claim in some cases, but they've made it universal) The Hillary version of it is going to be "You disagree with the First Female President of the United States? You must be a sexist(if female) or a misogynist(if male)!"

You want to stop or otherwise greatly curtail illegal immigration? You're a racist.
You have concerns about ____? You must be a (insert loaded term here).
You're a white male and support Trump? You must be a CIS-gendered, misogynistic, racist, homophobe!

Trump is channeling a lot of the backlash against that kind of knee-jerk reaction that many people have encountered in their own personal lives. The racist card has been so over-played in the past 8 years it's nearly worthless at this point, at least for anybody who identifies as anything remotely close to conservative, because odds are very good they've had it played against themselves personally.

They've started to ignore the label, its lost any kind of meaning in their view. And that is a very dangerous place to find things in. It makes a lot easier for the nastier racists to operate without any meaningful opposition, because many of the people who would have been right there to help ward them off 10 years ago are now just going to shrug and go "Oh, there's a new 'racist group' in town? Whatever."

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #11 on: June 26, 2016, 12:35:39 AM »
"PC" attacks can go too far -- I had the experience a few weeks ago of being accused of being a "swimmer" (Straight White Male or SWM'er) and of "mansplaining" because I did not agree with the interpretation of a situation that someone was describing to me at a dinner party.

There is no religion, no philosophy, no set of ideas at all that are so pure that some people won't abuse them. 

Fair enough.  But I respectfully submit that the inevitable corruption magnifies and becomes more dangerous when said philosophy and set of ideas becomes the institutional state religion.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #12 on: June 26, 2016, 12:40:43 AM »
If Mel Gibson believed horrible things about Jews and his father raised him to believe that the Holocaust never happened, does that change the fact that Mel has a winning smile? 

Note the similarity to how Al slips unsubstantiated blood libels against Mel Gibson into "If" clauses, and some of McCarthy's smear tactics.

This is the guy you vouched for, Greg.  Proud of him now?

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #13 on: June 26, 2016, 01:53:36 AM »
I was unaware I was defending AI or that specific quotation (spoiler: I wasn't).

Quote
For the past 8 years the refrain has pretty much been "You disagree with President Obama, the First Black President of the United States? You must be racist!" (Something that has had attention on this forum recently as well; there may be a basis for the claim in some cases, but they've made it universal) The Hillary version of it is going to be "You disagree with the First Female President of the United States? You must be a sexist(if female) or a misogynist(if male)!"

I do agree that words as knee-jerk stupid as you quote above have been said by human beings. But I also believe that there is a right-wing cult of self-victimization that exaggerates explicitly stupid PC comments.

And your assertion that every rebuttal to a criticism of Obama is based on racism is utterly false ("they've made it universal"). I have been a strong defender of President Obama, and I believe that my track record on Ornery will show that at least 99% of the time that I am defending Obama, I do not have a need to resort to arguments regarding racism.

And there is also a clear documented pattern of bigotry that has been strongly correlated with support for Republicans and opposition to Obama - for much of Obama's first term, a majority of Republican voters believed that Obama was a Muslim. Not only is this the first time in American history that the majority of members of an opposition party believed that the President had a different religion than he proclaimed, but calling him a Muslim was not merely a doctrinal matter, it was calling him an enemy of Americans, a foreigner, and a supporter of terrorists. When's the last time in American history something like that happened? When's the last time that a President was heckled during the State of the Union speech? There have even been studies that clear show that Republican advertising against Obama have used images that artificially darken his skin, and there are studies that have shown that when you darken his skin, a fraction of voters are more likely to oppose him. 

So racism is sometimes there - but in the vast majority of attacks on Obama, the opposition can be dispelled with resort to facts, and the existence or non-existence of bigotry is irrelevant.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #14 on: June 26, 2016, 03:26:05 AM »
I don't think the issue with PC extremists is that the right wingers take them out of context and blow their statements out of proportion, claiming the whole left believes those things. Rather, I think what we see is an example of false tribalism where an extremist leftist will make PC claims such as calling every man a sexist or every white person a racist, and since that speaker is 'on the side of' anti-racism you won't exactly see left-leaning people line up to oppose such comments. After all, they're on the 'same team', aren't they? The main issue here as I see it is the overarching narrative of us vs them, and people are almost afraid to leave behind the "us" to make divergent claims on the same topic. Greg, you may be an exception to this, being both intelligent and open-minded, but we're talking about social trends and larger movements, which often encompass 'groups' rather than individuals keeping their own council.

The recent social trend towards partisan tribalism almost necessitates that people of the same 'tribe' won't be totally free to dissent with views expressed by others in the tribe; especially those whose views are on 'sacred' topics that are supposedly the bread and butter topics of the tribe. In fact, I would suggest that partisan tribalism (tribalism is always partisan) is more or less the antithesis to individualism, and therefore in theory ought to be anathema to a liberal. And yet both right and left have dutifully accepted the premise that their main task is to join the ranks and defeat the other side; this is even the message recently given en masse to Bernie supporters to try to get them to stomach switching to Clinton. 

A funny example of this tribal quagmire that randomly comes to mind right now is the (in my mind) notorious sex-offender registry. The system behind this registry does all sorts of crazy things in addition to whatever good it achieves, including placing teens on it for sexting each other. So let's say it has some potential merit but is frequently broken in implementation. Well let's just say you're not exactly going to see people lining the streets campaigning for less people to be put on that registry or to make it harder to get on. The activist position on sex offenders is supposed to be "down with sex offenders!" or sometimes "they should burn in hell", and there isn't much room for interpolations such as "yes but we're going too far and need to be a bit more reasonable." The tribe pushes that system in one direction, and it's tough when the position is too extreme for people within the tribe to try to backpedal it. Momentum doesn't seem to work that way. Similarly you're not seeing too many liberals clamoring for an end to the misuse of calling people racists for various spurious reasons, even though as TheDeamon points out the left is actually harmed by having an important word watered down and even made to become senseless noise to much of the population. When people feel like groaning when they hear the word instead of sitting up and taking notice, you've got a national neuro-linguistic problem on your hands.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #15 on: June 26, 2016, 06:46:01 AM »
Quote
Note the similarity to how Al slips unsubstantiated blood libels against Mel Gibson into "If" clauses, and some of McCarthy's smear tactics.
You love to talk in absurd absolutes when you jump on people.  I don't like your cartoonish mis-characterizations and wish you would be more willing to stop and think before you jump.

So doing your research (once again) this article captures what I was thinking of.  Since it's the only time he is quoted making anti-semitic remarks, and he tacitly admits that he believed what he said, it's enough.
Quote
Mel Gibson says it’s time for the world to leave his anti-Semitic comments in the past.

“It's behind me; it's an eight-year-old story,” he told Hollywood Reporter. “It keeps coming up like a rerun, but I've dealt with it and I've dealt with it responsibly and I've worked on myself for anything I am culpable for.”

The actor was arrested in 2006 for suspected drink-driving in Malibu and made anti-Semitic remarks to a policeman, which he later apologised for – explaining that the comments were “blurted out in a moment of insanity”, branding the incident as “despicable' behaviour”.

According to a police report, Gibson asked the officer if he was Jewish and said: “F**king Jews. The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.”

You can read this if you want a bit of info on both Mel and his father.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 06:50:03 AM by AI Wessex »

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #16 on: June 26, 2016, 07:27:29 AM »
Quote
And yet both right and left have dutifully accepted the premise that their main task is to join the ranks and defeat the other side; this is even the message recently given en masse to Bernie supporters to try to get them to stomach switching to Clinton. 
Do you see that as nothing more than partisan gimmickry by Clinton hacks?  Or is it more likely that a Trump Presidency is unthinkable to the majority of Democrats and practically all "lefties"?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #17 on: June 26, 2016, 09:10:06 AM »
I do agree that words as knee-jerk stupid as you quote above have been said by human beings. But I also believe that there is a right-wing cult of self-victimization that exaggerates explicitly stupid PC comments.

And your assertion that every rebuttal to a criticism of Obama is based on racism is utterly false ("they've made it universal"). I have been a strong defender of President Obama, and I believe that my track record on Ornery will show that at least 99% of the time that I am defending Obama, I do not have a need to resort to arguments regarding racism.

Yes, it is possible to rebut without "going there" but the issue is, for MANY people out there, that is now their first resort. Which is why I said:

Trump is channeling a lot of the backlash against that kind of knee-jerk reaction that many people have encountered in their own personal lives. The racist card has been so over-played in the past 8 years it's nearly worthless at this point, at least for anybody who identifies as anything remotely close to conservative, because odds are very good they've had it played against themselves personally.

They've started to ignore the label, its lost any kind of meaning in their view. And that is a very dangerous place to find things in. It makes a lot easier for the nastier racists to operate without any meaningful opposition, because many of the people who would have been right there to help ward them off 10 years ago are now just going to shrug and go "Oh, there's a new 'racist group' in town? Whatever."

Talking heads on TV don't personally walk up to people and call them racists, bigots, or any other such things. That's co-workers, friends, family, neighbors, or other members of their larger local community.  Or in the case of the people online, people they interact with online, where finding the extremists on both sides is very easy to do, even in fairly obscure corners of the internet.

Thing is, this is also within the realm of experience I've had online with cyber-communities that have been around for nearly 20 years now, with many/most of the same people still present. The "you must be racist" card (as well as a number of the other loaded terms) is now freely played in those locations as well(against people they should, rightfully, know better than to accuse of such things), so it isn't just cyber-activists trolling the internet looking for new places to spew their rhetoric. It has become ingrained into large swaths of the present day culture.

Rhetoric now trumps(pun almost intended) discourse for far too many people at this point. Both sides are guilty, on different subjects, but they're both doing it. Nobody is bothering to listen for much more than keywords, at which point "You must be a ____" is expressed, and all meaningful discussion ends.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #18 on: June 26, 2016, 11:04:17 AM »
Quote
t least for anybody who identifies as anything remotely close to conservative, because odds are very good they've had it played against themselves personally.

If you have been accused of racism, and if that accusation is false, then that false statement that erodes the credibility of the person who levied the accusation against you.  But everyone else who is disagreeing with you is not responsible for that false statement. 

As a final point, even if someone makes a false statement when disagreeing with you,  ask yourself what expectation you have about other people correcting themselves for false statements, and what degree that you hold yourself to the same standards.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #19 on: June 26, 2016, 10:00:31 PM »
If you have been accused of racism, and if that accusation is false, then that false statement that erodes the credibility of the person who levied the accusation against you.  But everyone else who is disagreeing with you is not responsible for that false statement.

So you attempt to correct them, and they hold fast to their position. You no longer respect them as much as you did before the accusation was made, and it seems they don't respect you much at all, or they wouldn't have made it. So where do we then stand in regards to finding a common ground? That usually requires some degree of mutual respect, which isn't going to happen when disrespect is the major game in town.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #20 on: June 26, 2016, 11:58:16 PM »
I find your last comment to be a reasonable position... but it is very different from what you said earlier, which was making far broader assertions that every defense of Obama included an accusation of racism.

If we want to find common ground and have mutual respect, then we should be careful not to recklessly throw charges of racism, but we should also be equally vigilant to avoid inadvertantly making broader assertions that also are untrue.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #21 on: June 27, 2016, 12:58:26 AM »
Quote
Note the similarity to how Al slips unsubstantiated blood libels against Mel Gibson into "If" clauses, and some of McCarthy's smear tactics.
You love to talk in absurd absolutes when you jump on people.  I don't like your cartoonish mis-characterizations and wish you would be more willing to stop and think before you jump.


You're the one who makes cartoonish mischaracterizations.  You should provide facts before you hurl bloody accusations, and it's just cowardly to blather about "doing someone's research for them" when they simply as you to justify one of your extreme accusations.  (Can't help note that your targets are always white and Christian.)

I said nothing in defense of Mel's father. 

Quote
So doing your research (once again) this article captures what I was thinking of.   

Was there supposed to be a link there, or was that more of your typical sleight of hand to pretend that you have some basis for what you said? 

Quote
Since it's the only time he is quoted making anti-semitic remarks,

I can only assume that you're talking about the stuff he yelled at the cop when he was drunk off his ass.  If you have ever dealt with drunks, or been one, and have any level of human empathy, you'd recognize that if a guy had a bigoted dad, and ended up parrotting some of his dad's bigotry while he was in his cups, that's not a reflection of what he "really" thinks.

Quote
and he tacitly admits that he believed what he said

Bullcrap and sanctimonious priestcraft.  He explicitly denied that he believed that, within a week of the drunk incident.  I defy you to show me a more thorough apology than what he said that.  It's completely dishonest to claim that what he said in that quote you provided is any sort of "tacit atmit[ance]" that he believes that.  He's explained what he believes, he apologized, he asked how he could make up for it, and anyone who is still holding it over him years later is too much of an ass to ever give him a chance.  Why waste more words?  AntiChristian secularists have broken his career, and the rest of us know that it was just a pretext and that what they really hate him for was making the movie Passion of the Christ.

Seems obvious to me that all of the losers that tried and failed to block the making of the Passion, and tried to convince everyone that the movie was going to cause massive murder of Jews worldwide by crazed Christians, have used that episode of Gibson's drunken rant to try to cover their embarrassment.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #22 on: June 27, 2016, 07:42:11 AM »
I find your last comment to be a reasonable position... but it is very different from what you said earlier, which was making far broader assertions that every defense of Obama included an accusation of racism.

If we want to find common ground and have mutual respect, then we should be careful not to recklessly throw charges of racism, but we should also be equally vigilant to avoid inadvertantly making broader assertions that also are untrue.

No, I didn't say every time, I said the refrain "has pretty much been" which is one of those semantic differences between many/most vs always. Calling it out as a common or even predominate response is a far cry from saying it is the only response that has been given when a certain kind of event occurs.

Kind of like how people respond in emergency situations, depending on the nature of the event, you'll have people who will try to remove themselves from the situation, perhaps at the expense of others, you'll have others who gawk, and you'll have others who rush to assist. Most will either gawk or flee, but that isn't everybody.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #23 on: June 27, 2016, 12:58:28 PM »
Quote
Rather, I think what we see is an example of false tribalism where an extremist leftist will make PC claims such as calling every man a sexist or every white person a racist, and since that speaker is 'on the side of' anti-racism you won't exactly see left-leaning people line up to oppose such comments. After all, they're on the 'same team', aren't they?
  Always interesting to watch a 'side' become what they hate about their opponents.  When this happens here you do see people line up to oppose such comments.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #24 on: June 27, 2016, 02:20:47 PM »
Quote
Rather, I think what we see is an example of false tribalism where an extremist leftist will make PC claims such as calling every man a sexist or every white person a racist, and since that speaker is 'on the side of' anti-racism you won't exactly see left-leaning people line up to oppose such comments. After all, they're on the 'same team', aren't they?
  Always interesting to watch a 'side' become what they hate about their opponents.  When this happens here you do see people line up to oppose such comments.

If you mean here on Ornery, yeah, I have always appreciated the general level of discourse here.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #25 on: June 29, 2016, 07:04:55 PM »
And here's the latest from the Trump campaign: Trump Junior sent an e-mail out, asking for contributions for his father's campaign.  To everyone.  (I think my wife got one, too.)

Including foreign dignitaries.  ::)

Needless to say, the result has not been pretty.

Quote
“Quite why you think it appropriate to write emails to U.K. parliamentarians with a begging bowl for your father’s repugnant campaign is completely beyond me,” Scottish MP Natalie McGarry wrote in response to fundraising solicitation from Donald Trump Jr. “Given his rhetoric on migrants, refugees, and immigration, it seems quite extraordinary that he would be asking for money; especially people who view his dangerous divisiveness with horror..."

May be Donald Trump bought lists - bizarre for grassroots campaign - but how does he opt out of foreign donations? ...
— Natalie McGarry MP (@NatalieMcgarry) June 27, 2016

Scottish MP Stuart McDonald was similarly baffled.

Dear @nytimes, could you pass a message to @realDonaldTrump for me? Please stop sending campaign begging letters to MPs. It's pathetic!
— Stuart McDonald MP (@Stuart_McDonald) June 27, 2016 ...

"Members of Parliament are being bombarded by electronic communications from Team Trump on behalf of somebody called Donald Trump," Conservative English MP Roger Gale said on Tuesday, according to Politics Home. "Mr. Speaker, I’m all in favor of free speech but I don’t see why colleagues on either side of the House should be subjected to intemperate spam."

The Icelanders and Australians weren't pleased, either.

Is this an example of how Donald Trump would run our country?  :-[

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #26 on: June 29, 2016, 07:26:01 PM »
It is quite possible that someone signed up for Trump emails via his campaign site and used fake email addresses (if there isn't a confirmation that the email address isn't a fake before sending solicitation emails).

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #27 on: June 30, 2016, 12:57:42 AM »
And here's the latest from the Trump campaign: Trump Junior sent an e-mail out, asking for contributions for his father's campaign.  To everyone.  (I think my wife got one, too.)

Including foreign dignitaries.  ::)

Needless to say, the result has not been pretty.

Quote
“Quite why you think it appropriate to write emails to U.K. parliamentarians with a begging bowl for your father’s repugnant campaign is completely beyond me,” Scottish MP Natalie McGarry wrote in response to fundraising solicitation from Donald Trump Jr. “Given his rhetoric on migrants, refugees, and immigration, it seems quite extraordinary that he would be asking for money; especially people who view his dangerous divisiveness with horror..."

May be Donald Trump bought lists - bizarre for grassroots campaign - but how does he opt out of foreign donations? ...
— Natalie McGarry MP (@NatalieMcgarry) June 27, 2016

Scottish MP Stuart McDonald was similarly baffled.

Dear @nytimes, could you pass a message to @realDonaldTrump for me? Please stop sending campaign begging letters to MPs. It's pathetic!
— Stuart McDonald MP (@Stuart_McDonald) June 27, 2016 ...

"Members of Parliament are being bombarded by electronic communications from Team Trump on behalf of somebody called Donald Trump," Conservative English MP Roger Gale said on Tuesday, according to Politics Home. "Mr. Speaker, I’m all in favor of free speech but I don’t see why colleagues on either side of the House should be subjected to intemperate spam."

The Icelanders and Australians weren't pleased, either.

Is this an example of how Donald Trump would run our country?  :-[

I know what you mean, Wayward.

On October 14, 2014, I intercepted the following correspondence from Senator Dianne Feinstein soliciting money from my late dog, Genghis Conrad, who had passed away in Las Vegas two years before:

Quote
   
From: info@diannefeinsteinforsenate.com
To: Genghis 10/15/14 at 12:35 PM

 

Dear Friend,

Roll Call recently published their list of Most Vulnerable Senators in the country. Some of the top targets were Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, Mark Pryor in Arkansas, Mark Begich in Alaska, Kay Hagan in North Carolina, and Mark Udall in Colorado.

All five of these senators are dedicated middle class champions. All five are in races that polls and pundits alike are calling “toss ups.” And all five are major targets for the Koch brothers, Karl Rove, and the rest of the special interests.

Special interests have spent a combined $95 million to bring down Landrieu, Pryor, Begich, Hagan and Udall. And today, I wanted to help them all raise a combined $295,000 to fight back.

These five senators can’t win against that much outside cash without help from grassroots supporters like you, Genghis. Can you contribute $5 to help them fight back?

Landrieu, Pryor, Begich, Hagan and Udall only have 20 days left until the election. There are a million things they need to do between now and then to win against all that special interest cash.

Contributions from supporters like you help to pay for equipment their volunteers need on the ground. It helps pay for phone lines, offices, and events they need to turn out Democrats in this tough year.

$95 million buys the Kochs and Rove a LOT of ads. We need to help Landrieu, Pryor, Begich, Hagan and Udall buy all the things they need to fight.

If you can, give $5 or more right now. Help us reach $295,000 for these five special interest targets.

Control of the Senate may very well come down to who wins these five seats. We need to make sure our candidates -- not Koch candidates -- come out ahead.

The future of the Senate is in your hands. Help us reach $295,000 by midnight with a contribution.

Thank you.


Dianne
 

Since Genghiswas dead and his typing and command of English was never very good, I took the liberty of replying to Senator Feinstein on his behalf:

Quote
Dear [Senator] Feinstein.

Why are you writing a dead Terrier from Nevada? Genghis was a good dog, But I'm pretty sure he never had much interest in politics.

Best regards, Peter

Sad to say, the requests for Genghis' estate did not stop for a few months until the election had passed.

Is this an example of how Senator Feinstein would run her senate responsibilities?  Hounding dead dogs from outside her district?

« Last Edit: June 30, 2016, 01:00:35 AM by Pete at Home »

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #28 on: June 30, 2016, 11:06:41 AM »
When did the ability to speak and debate without intentionally being offensive become offensive?

What happens when being politically incorrect becomes politically correct?

From the Article

Quote
“The young man explained why he was willing to overlook that behavior….
30 Trump supporters explaining their support. A backlash against “political correctness” loomed large in those accounts.”

“Having Trump in the White House would both give me more confidence to speak my own opinion and more of a shield from instantly being dismissed as a racist/xenophobe/Nazi (all three things I have been called personally”

I don’t understand the logic... I don’t understand the words “political correctness”.

I don't understand anything....
   

What happens in a world where saying whatever you want in as offensive language that you chose without regard to factual correctness becomes politically correct? 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #29 on: June 30, 2016, 11:32:47 AM »
When did the ability to speak and debate without intentionally being offensive become offensive?

I think you're misattributing the speaker's intent. What he's referring to is most likely being labelled a 'racist, sexist, etc.' strictly on the grounds of disagreeing in principle with certain propositions. He's not saying he wants to feel protected in calling people bad names (although people should be overall protected in that too).

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #30 on: June 30, 2016, 11:49:35 AM »
So apparently it's illegal to ask foreign government officials for campaign money. While it was almost certainly not intentional, it raises the point and laugh quotient higher than an email asking a dead dog for money.

My (rather belated) condolences on the loss of your dog, Pete.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #31 on: June 30, 2016, 11:55:40 AM »
So electing Trump will stop other people from labeling those that disagree with as racist or such

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #32 on: June 30, 2016, 11:56:15 AM »
So apparently it's illegal to ask foreign government officials for campaign money.

Not just illegal to ask for it, but also illegal to receive it. Foreign governments are forbidden, for obvious reasons, to directly finance American political candidates. Then again, it's apparently not illegal for them to donate millions of dollars to "foundations" run by political candidates. I'm not sure what the rules are for foreign dogs, or foreign dog governments.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #33 on: June 30, 2016, 11:58:03 AM »
So electing Trump will stop other people from labeling those that disagree with as racist or such

I think it's a matter of fighting over cultural climate. With 'the other side' in power I assume they believe there would be a cultural shift away from legitimizing that kind of rhetoric.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #34 on: June 30, 2016, 12:14:26 PM »
I assume that your assumption is correct which is what does not make sense to me.

This guy is saying that he wants to be protected from being called a racist for speaking his mind… for example saying something like all green people are inbreed murders and rapists because they are green and come for country X without being labeled a racist. 

Essentially he wants to be protected from being labeled while free to label because its “as he sees it”.  Free from being offended while free to offend.

And that this issue of political correctness, whatever that is, is more important then matters of Character and if what is actually being said is true or not.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #35 on: June 30, 2016, 12:24:54 PM »
Essentially he wants to be protected from being labeled while free to label because its “as he sees it”.  Free from being offended while free to offend.

That may or may not be true in particular for this guy, but there is a legitimate argument to be had if you consider a reasonable person adopting the same position. Functionally, even the scenario you describe is not symmetrical. Calling someone by a judgmental name just because you don't like them is not nice, but it doesn't have the same objective as calling someone a bad name in order to shut down their ability to have discourse on a topic; and not just a given person or ethnic group, but shutting down anyone's ability to have discourse on that topic. The first case is just being as a**hole, the second is an attempt to control lines of communication. Each can be said to have a negative aspect, but they're not the same. Some people believe their right to be an a**hole should be protected, and in a sense they're right. But no one should have the right to prevent others having dissenting views.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #36 on: June 30, 2016, 01:00:09 PM »
rightleft,

Quote
This guy is saying that he wants to be protected from being called a racist for speaking his mind… for example saying something like all green people are inbreed murders and rapists because they are green and come for country X without being labeled a racist.

No that isn't what he is saying.  He probably would agree that calling someone who said that a racist.

I believe what he is talking about , is if he says something like 'I oppose affirmative action, I feel that it results in less qualified individuals unfairly taking away spots for more qualified candidates' - and being labeled racist.  It isn't a racist position, but it is contrary to a position held by many 'social justice warriors'.  It is an opinion held by some racists, but it is also an opinion held by many non racists.

Or if he expresses an opinion that the death of someone killed by the cops wasn't based on racism - such as 'I believe that the shooting of Tamir Rice, while tragic was justified based on the information that the police officers had at the time, and was not due to racist belief by the police officers'.  Again a controversial opinion, held by some racists, that many SJWs would disagree with and would label anyone expressing that opinion as racist.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #37 on: June 30, 2016, 01:15:26 PM »
Quote
Calling someone by a judgmental name just because you don't like them is not nice…

Are we assuming that the person in the example is being called a racist because the other person doesn’t like him and wants to shut them down?

Perhaps the dialog should be clearer and the remarks qualified by saying that what is being said, the words being used to make the argument – all green men are rapists – is an argument of race.
(And in doing so conform to the convention of political correctness – label the sin not the sinner) So one again we are back to where we started

If I make an argument that founded on the concept of race can I be called a racist?
Should calling me a racist shut down the debate or is it a call to go deeper?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #38 on: June 30, 2016, 01:29:20 PM »
Are we assuming that the person in the example is being called a racist because the other person doesn’t like him and wants to shut them down?

It's about controlling narrative. The issue is to prevent a line of argument from existing rather than attempting to refute it. Instead of "I think you're wrong because X", the argument becomes "your argument is irrelevant because you are bad." It's a simple poisoning the well tactic, couched in rhetoric about protecting people. Conversely, there is such a thing as dangerous speech such as inciting to do harm to a minority, and so there is an extreme there to combat. The trick that is angering people such as you reference is that this justification is being used in creeping fashion to try to shut down more and more types of speech by undermining the speaker's moral worth.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2016, 01:31:33 PM by Fenring »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #39 on: June 30, 2016, 01:36:20 PM »
Quote
Calling someone by a judgmental name just because you don't like them is not nice…

Are we assuming that the person in the example is being called a racist because the other person doesn’t like him and wants to shut them down?

Perhaps the dialog should be clearer and the remarks qualified by saying that what is being said, the words being used to make the argument – all green men are rapists – is an argument of race.
(And in doing so conform to the convention of political correctness – label the sin not the sinner) So one again we are back to where we started

If I make an argument that founded on the concept of race can I be called a racist?
Should calling me a racist shut down the debate or is it a call to go deeper?

When someone plugs their ears with their fingers and starts yelling "na na na na na!" as loud as they can to drown you out, should that shut down the debate, or is it a call to go deeper?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #40 on: June 30, 2016, 01:56:47 PM »
So the problem here isn’t an issue of political correctness but a failure in the education system in regards to debate and the understanding of “semantic reactions” (Science and Sanity)

yelling "na na na na na!" is no longer a debate or making a argument about a position

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #41 on: June 30, 2016, 02:03:44 PM »


yelling "na na na na na!" is no longer a debate or making a argument about a position

Exactly my point.  And 99% of the time, neither is calling one's opponent a racist.

If you had a chance to publicly debate Adolf Hitler before he rose to power, would you get more traction by calling him a racist (which he doubtlessly was) or by publicly showing that his arguments were fallacious and his facts fiction?

Quote
So the problem here isn’t an issue of political correctness but a failure in the education system in regards to debate and the understanding of “semantic reactions” (Science and Sanity)

The problem is that political correctness has come to embody a wholesale failure in the education system with regard to dialog, and has created a terminology that is more often used to prevent thought than to deepen the discussion.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #42 on: June 30, 2016, 02:35:09 PM »
Quote
would you get more traction by calling him a racist (which he doubtlessly was) or by publicly showing that his arguments were fallacious and his facts fiction?

This is what I don't understand we are no longer trying to to show or seem to care that arguments are fact fictions and seem to be ok with that????

Trump can "tell it like it is" and because its not politically correct it does not mater if what he says is not true to fact.

In the recent Brexit campaign the backlash of political correctness had more of an impact on the vote then the correctness of facts. the exit campaign deliberately misrepresent "facts"...
keeping the debate as far from facts and actual plans on how the UK would leave and what doing so would look like.
Anyone attempting to bring the debate to real issues was labeled a intellectual elite which ended the debate.
What the UK got was a reaction to feeling instead of a response based on thinking.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #43 on: June 30, 2016, 03:26:54 PM »
The problem is that political correctness has come to embody a wholesale failure in the education system with regard to dialog, and has created a terminology that is more often used to prevent thought than to deepen the discussion.

It's not just the terminology that dictates the mindset (although it does), but I think it goes deeper. The "na na na" tactic shares something in common, I think, with the Kafkatrap, which is that its source of power is the real human predisposition to believe deep down that others should not disagree with you. There is some primal, stupid part of each person that believes it's entitled to have whatever it wants and to have everyone bow to one's beliefs, and this part (perhaps acquired in infancy? perhaps inevitable?) needs to be re-educated asap in one's development. To the extent that people increasingly are embracing a fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-individualist attitude I do agree the blame can partially be laid on the education system.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #44 on: June 30, 2016, 03:50:03 PM »
Quote
would you get more traction by calling him a racist (which he doubtlessly was) or by publicly showing that his arguments were fallacious and his facts fiction?

This is what I don't understand we are no longer trying to to show or seem to care that arguments are fact fictions and seem to be ok with that????

Trump can "tell it like it is" and because its not politically correct it does not mater if what he says is not true to fact.

Leftist Political Porrectness is not the only type of {lower-case} political correctness. In the broader sense, Trump-speak is just a subtype of populism, which is the oldest extant form of political correctness in America.  The second oldest is probably the "sensitivity" to Confederate bullcrap that America learned to swallow in order to allow white folks to stop killing each other at the end of the civil war.  We let the sheetheads write lies into our history books.  But those forms of political correctness have always existed, and the human mind survived them because unlike the new Leftist Political Correctness, they never managed a wholesale takeover of the very institutions that are supposed to teach our children critical thought.  So Trump-speak is a disease, but Political Correctness is an autoimmune disorder.  Lupus of the brain.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #45 on: June 30, 2016, 11:01:13 PM »
rightleft,
Quote
This guy is saying that he wants to be protected from being called a racist for speaking his mind… for example saying something like all green people are inbreed murders and rapists because they are green and come for country X without being labeled a racist.

No that isn't what he is saying.  He probably would agree that calling someone who said that a racist.

I believe what he is talking about , is if he says something like 'I oppose affirmative action, I feel that it results in less qualified individuals unfairly taking away spots for more qualified candidates' - and being labeled racist.  It isn't a racist position, but it is contrary to a position held by many 'social justice warriors'.  It is an opinion held by some racists, but it is also an opinion held by many non racists.

Or if he expresses an opinion that the death of someone killed by the cops wasn't based on racism - such as 'I believe that the shooting of Tamir Rice, while tragic was justified based on the information that the police officers had at the time, and was not due to racist belief by the police officers'.  Again a controversial opinion, held by some racists, that many SJWs would disagree with and would label anyone expressing that opinion as racist.

That was my read into what he was talking about, particularly as he brought up affirmative action specifically on that matter.

The response, in way too many venues, when you express views along the above outlined(by LetterRip) criteria, will far more often than not result in your being called a racist. About the only time you can express something like that to someone and not get called racist is when you find someone that agrees with you, in which case, they're not likely apply such a label to the view for obvious reasons. Which makes for non-existant dialog between the various sides, and encourages both sides to "dig in."

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #46 on: June 30, 2016, 11:07:15 PM »
Which makes for non-existant dialog between the various sides, and encourages both sides to "dig in."

Divide and conquer.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #47 on: June 30, 2016, 11:09:11 PM »
Are we assuming that the person in the example is being called a racist because the other person doesn’t like him and wants to shut them down?

It's about controlling narrative. The issue is to prevent a line of argument from existing rather than attempting to refute it. Instead of "I think you're wrong because X", the argument becomes "your argument is irrelevant because you are bad." It's a simple poisoning the well tactic, couched in rhetoric about protecting people.


Exactly, and people have encountered it often enough at this point that pretty much as soon as someone pulls that card out, the discussion is over. The smart ones will just disengage and walk away at that point, as experience has taught them that further discussion is pointless. The less intelligent will just get angry at that point, and its all downhill from there.

Quote
Conversely, there is such a thing as dangerous speech such as inciting to do harm to a minority, and so there is an extreme there to combat. The trick that is angering people such as you reference is that this justification is being used in creeping fashion to try to shut down more and more types of speech by undermining the speaker's moral worth.

Which is where my concern is, the "you're being racist/sexist/____" accusation is being used to shutdown otherwise legitimate discussions, and it IS being used to control and limit speech on a broad range of topics.

This also devalues the "shock" value of those words, so when Grand Dragon of the KKK turns up for a rally and people start agitating about "A racist group is coming to town" (but for some reason forget to mention its the KKK or Aryan Nation), a lot of people are going to shrug and go "So what? Everybody's 'racist' these days, didn't you know that?"

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #48 on: June 30, 2016, 11:25:00 PM »
In the recent Brexit campaign the backlash of political correctness had more of an impact on the vote then the correctness of facts. the exit campaign deliberately misrepresent "facts"...
keeping the debate as far from facts and actual plans on how the UK would leave and what doing so would look like.
Anyone attempting to bring the debate to real issues was labeled a intellectual elite which ended the debate.
What the UK got was a reaction to feeling instead of a response based on thinking.

Some of this I think also goes to "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics." I'm not going to make claims on the accuracy, or validity of claims or projections(and their assumptions) made and presented during the Brexit Campaign running up to the vote.

I do know a lot of voters have started to catch on that even the "fact checkers" aren't to be trusted in a lot of cases, as the "True neutrals" are VERY few and far between, although many try to claim that position.

Which is where some of that "intellectual elite" backlash is coming from, they're basically saying "You're making argument by way of statistics, and we don't trust your methodology or metrics."

It also doesn't help that in some cases, like with more than a few things related to economics, are counter-intuitive at first glace and can take some time to wrap your head around, in a classroom setting at that, if you ever do. That very counter-intuitive nature is going to hurt you when you try to present THAT (counter-intuitive) argument to an "everyman" on the street. In many cases, you have maybe 30 seconds to make your point, and if they can't grasp your argument in that much time, you've already lost.

And that goes for the "elites"(who probably have been versed in some of that counter-intuitive stuff previously, so its not their "first glance") and "Average Joe" on the street as well, just on different sides of the spectrum in regards to what you need to overcome, but the same roughly 30 second window will likely apply. Unless either an exceptional circumstance applies, or you have someone who is genuinely interested in learning something.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2016, 11:27:18 PM by TheDeamon »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A thoughtful defense of voting for trump
« Reply #49 on: June 30, 2016, 11:40:18 PM »
Which makes for non-existant dialog between the various sides, and encourages both sides to "dig in."

Divide and conquer.

The Obama Domestic Strategy in a nutshell. Faced with opposition? Rather than find common ground with the opposition(or its political base, *gasp*) you go to your own political base and rile them up and hope they're more motivated than the other side. If you can find "wedge issues" (a very popular buzz-phrase the past 8 years in media) targeted to specific demographics that might tip the balance one way or the other, even better.

Forget trying to win over a substantial majority, 50%+1 is more than enough to get things done. And hey. that's "Democracy in action!" in all of its cynical glory.

Which this election cycle taking to comical extremes, with over 80% of the voters probably already decided on who their candidate is, another 10% that are pretty firm on their picks, which leaves that last less than 10% as the deciding factor both sides will focus on.... Well, normally, anyhow. Who knows what Trump will do, but Hillary is going to be researching that final 10% with a fine tooth comb and trying to glean every advantage she can. Undermining the other side's political base isn't even on the agenda, beyond the standard character assassination games.