PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Hmmm, see, I disagree. I think you hold different groups to different standards based on what you view to be different levels of severity. I think you're a bigger proponent of kid gloves for social conservatives (which a lot of people, obviously, believe are a huge problem) and much harsher on the left (and Islam, but that's a can of worms).

Not that it negates your point in any way, but do you see the difference in your own language between these?

Absolutely, but I think I'm usually talking about different things when I'm talking about these groups, because as you know, they're not monoliths.

My issue with Islamism (not Islam, important distinction) is the group of people who are effectively the equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church, or worse - the ones who are actively committing, or supporting, murder, torture and in some cases rape of innocents with impunity. Being harsher on those people is warranted. Social conservatives are trying to pass laws to allow bakeries not to make wedding cakes for gay couples; Islamists want to cut those gay couples' heads off. If what passes for "social conservatism" in Pakistan managed to moderate itself to the point that it was the moral equivalent of the Christian right in America, I'd moderate my tone with them, just as soon as I finished doing cartwheels with glee.

Your responses to Psychenet don't seem more enlightened than his posts, but they're postured that way. If we're against entrenching people with our language, do you think you actively entrench people on the left? or enlighten them?

I want to believe that people on the left can figure out that this isn't working, recognize why they're not getting through to people, and change tactics. We used to have conversations, rather than simply hurling moralistic invective and labels. I spent my undergrad talking to social conservatives about how describing homosexuality as "unnatural" didn't make any sense because it doesn't meet any definition of that word, and how there was no moral basis for distinguishing between people on the basis of their sexual preferences, and why it's best for society that religion and politics be kept separate, and why Rawls's veil of ignorance was an important consideration in policy-making. They still had the moral majority on their side - I had to have good, cogent, considered reasons for supporting my political views. Can't we get back to that?

I'm pretty pessimistic about that happening, because people regardless of their politics basically suck at self-examination. But at least in theory we're supposed to be the pro-Scientific-method side of the political spectrum. This experiment has failed. I'm explaining why. This is what I'm talking about when I say I'm holding the left to a higher standard: it ought to be able to fix itself. Maybe ten years ago it could have. I think things might be too far gone, though.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I get what you're getting at, but just because the subject matter is uncomfortable doesn't mean it isn't relevant to talk about.

Let me put it this way, if Mike wasn't an (at least somewhat) bigoted ####lord, he would already recognize these things, and work to change his effect on those around him. The only people who get upset by "latte-sipping, ivy league jackass"es are those who feel a seed of guilt for their behavior and suppress it, or those who think their behavior is justified.

No, the point is you can't tell Mike anything about himself. He knows and he won't be having no fancy book learning big city libtard looking down on him. Any attempt to educate him will be met with resistance unless you coddle him in your explanation which is hilarious in the irony regarding the derision for safe spaces and triggering from those in his camp.

Their solution from what I can tell is...leave it alone. It's fine for some people and it's crappy for others but that's just life. Buck up, stiff upper lip, and go to work.

[GirlySports]

ive said this in general.. not using the words stupid and idiot is a start.

from there craft your argument

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

No, the point is you can't tell Mike anything about himself. He knows and he won't be having no fancy book learning big city libtard looking down on him. Any attempt to educate him will be met with resistance unless you coddle him in your explanation which is hilarious in the irony regarding the derision for safe spaces and triggering from those in his camp.

Their solution from what I can tell is...leave it alone. It's fine for some people and it's crappy for others but that's just life. Buck up, stiff upper lip, and go to work.

Leaving aside your self-important elitism, my solution is to have conversations with these people without calling them names or deriding them, and explain why these issues are important and why they should see it your way. There are racists out there, there are genuinely terrible people who are beyond reaching, but there are a lot more people like my hypothetical electrician who are good, well-meaning and would probably agree with you on many things (or could at least be brought around to seeing and respecting your point) without you acting like they're a lower rung on the evolutionary ladder.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Do you really have no idea how utterly obnoxious you sound to people who don't share your world view? I mean, here's a hint; it's exactly as obnoxious as you'd find some evangelical telling you about what a horrible, sinful, godless heathen you are, and that you're going to burn in hell for eternity. That is what you sound like to these people.


The point, at the end of the day, is that the world we want, where racism and homophobia and sexism have faded into obscurity, isn't going to happen by going down this path. You can't shame and moralize people into submission. You can't call average, well-meaning people bigots for not caring about what you care about as much as you do, and then tell them to vote for you. It's not going to work. You're just going to get more Trumps.

Quoted for truth.

[GirlySports]

the electrician is a good example.. not long ago a high school diploma was good enough for a good job in most of the country. These people paved the way for kids today to get a college education. Then somehow the 'educated' bar got raised to mean a college degree. Well imagine you're the mid40 year old with that high school education that used to be good enough, now this kids you helped into college are calling you stupid.

that would get anyone mad.

and yes, im still mad at comedians.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Most of your posts towards me seem to be pointless or more focused on insult, but you're welcome to expand. Thought police doesn't really apply - please provide one example so I know what you're actually taking issue with.

I can't recall ever addressing you, and I certainly haven't in the past couple of months. Are you having trouble keeping your logins straight?

Anyway, you seem to think that progress is achieved by dictating to people how they should think and act. I can't imagine a more repressive tyranny.

[PsYcNeT]

You heard it here first guys. Being told that being a racist chuckle#### who thinks brown people are inferior is repressive, you bunch of wacky liberal Hitlers.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

You heard it here first guys. Being told that being a racist chuckle#### who thinks brown people are inferior is repressive, you bunch of wacky liberal Hitlers.

What the hell....

[PsYcNeT]

That's the logical conclusion isn't it? If telling people that racism is bad, being a bigot is bad, oppressing people based on skin color is bad, etc. etc. is "repressive" and "tyrannical", then I guess we should all just kill ourselves.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

That's the logical conclusion isn't it? If telling people that racism is bad, being a bigot is bad, oppressing people based on skin color is bad, etc. etc. is "repressive" and "tyrannical", then I guess we should all just kill ourselves.

No you just have to be gentler in how you discuss it so you don't trigger them because then they shut down and won't listen. Simple really.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is what I'm talking about when I say I'm holding the left to a higher standard: it ought to be able to fix itself. Maybe ten years ago it could have. I think things might be too far gone, though.

I see what you're saying, though, I don't know if I see evidence of well-thought out, measured, carefully considered speech working any better than just being blunt. It sure feels smarter.

The academic approach just isn't really relevant. Look at your post, you paint a VERY bleak picture of us having lost some ability and longing for the days of yore. Why? Do you think things are better for more people from a social equality standpoint now? Or 60 years ago? I think it's significantly better now, and big parts of progress in that were rude and violent. You're enough years older than me to have a different perspective, but fast and hard change is what people are after now because it's attainable. I think (hope) a lot of people on the left were aware of the pushback brewing. Either way, no matter in what view, you can't hold the left to some higher standard. We're all people with the same core values.

I don't know, I don't have the answer. I'm always against painting an entire group, whether it's conservatives, the left, Islam, w/e, as something positive or negative (or an entire person for that matter). I don't have a problem with just being blunt and coming at specific issues though.

I don't think there's a problem with noting privilege, or attitudes and language that are obviously descended from racist or bigoted values, thus, I support Psyche's POV. I agree though that the general painting is a huge problem. Bad elements do not make bad people, and bad people do not make bad groups.

[DiracSpike]

I think it's more people who want to wear a sombrero they got in Puerto as a Halloween costume, or are concerned about illegal immigration are sick of being called racist in the most certain of terms.

EDIT: And before I get a sarcastic reply about "ohh those poor white people who can't wear the Halloween costume they want", that's not what it's about. It's an example to show that small scale stuff like this is being called out as full-blown racism, or oppression, or some other heavy-handed term.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

That's the logical conclusion isn't it? If telling people that racism is bad, being a bigot is bad, oppressing people based on skin color is bad, etc. etc. is "repressive" and "tyrannical", then I guess we should all just kill ourselves.

Originally Posted by ResAlien

No you just have to be gentler in how you discuss it so you don't trigger them because then they shut down and won't listen. Simple really.

Come on, that cannot be the maximum level of nuance you guys are capable of.

I just can't believe that you're incapable of comprehending the problem at a more granular level than to think that this is what's being suggested. Seriously, if what you're getting out of this is "stop telling people that racism is bad", or "you're being too mean", then I think you're deliberately avoiding taking the point on board.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I think it's more people who want to wear a sombrero they got in Puerto as a Halloween costume, or are concerned about illegal immigration are sick of being called racist in the most certain of terms.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Come on, that cannot be the maximum level of nuance you guys are capable of.

I just can't believe that you're incapable of comprehending the problem at a more granular level than to think that this is what's being suggested. Seriously, if what you're getting out of this is "stop telling people that racism is bad", or "you're being too mean", then I think you're deliberately avoiding taking the point on board.

It's true, I'm incapable of achieving the nuanced point of view of "leftists are tyrannical repressives."

[Red Slinger]

Not sure if anyone has seen the Van Jones CNN videos of him speaking to voters in Gettysburg. It's a little self-important but he does make some good points relative to this conversation. The most important one being that we need to listen to each other and really try to understand where people are coming from rather than painting them into an ideological corner. I think his approach works better than pointing and someone and yelling "racist" and I think it also works better than just ignoring them until they go away.

Link: http://www.cnn.com/videos/opinions/2...-hill-pictures

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

I can't recall ever addressing you, and I certainly haven't in the past couple of months. Are you having trouble keeping your logins straight?

Anyway, you seem to think that progress is achieved by dictating to people how they should think and act. I can't imagine a more repressive tyranny.

Looks like I might have just got you confused with one of the small handful of other one-note drive-by trolls.

Anyway, when I asked for an example I meant an example, not a weak further generalisation of what you think of me (what you think is boring, why you think it is interesting). It sounds to me like you have no concept of my POV or what I think the best path towards progress is. Don't leave it at the drive-by, prove me wrong. Give me an example where I've "policed thought"

Progress from dictating how people can think and act, though? Crazy, i know. You must have just hated when they introduce laws against slavery and made the prosecution of hate crimes a thing. Those repressive tyrants!

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I see what you're saying, though, I don't know if I see evidence of well-thought out, measured, carefully considered speech working any better than just being blunt. It sure feels smarter.

It has to work better. Anything is a better method of persuasion than insulting someone. The only question is how much better, given that people can now simply bury their heads in the sand and go find a youtube channel that reinforces their pre-conceptions rather than confronting them by talking to smart people who disagree with them. That's the bleak picture.

I don't think there's a problem with noting privilege, or attitudes and language that are obviously descended from racist or bigoted values, thus, I support Psyche's POV. I agree though that the general painting is a huge problem. Bad elements do not make bad people, and bad people do not make bad groups.

Suggesting that certain groups of people start out with advantages due to inherent imbalances in society is a reasonable, defensible and provable view. You can bring data to bear on that point. You can then have a discussion about how best to address structural inequality. You can do all of that without calling anyone a racist for not fully understanding your point or for not being totally convinced by the data. There's a difference between "noting privilege", and telling people that their views are invalid because of their gender, or accusing them of being tacitly culpable in some grand conspiracy because of their race.

Basically, the understandable response to all of this is, "well, that's great for you in your office tower, but meanwhile these inequalities persist, and things weren't getting better fast enough. We have to force the issue. Black kids are getting shot by cops, women are being sexually harassed in the workplace and quitting before they can advance far enough to make a dent in the wage gap, and gays are being spit on and dehumanized. There's no time to "Keep Calm and Trust John Stuart Mill", there's no time for doing things the reasonable, measured way. We have to get in peoples' faces. This has to stop right now."

I hear you.

I'm just saying that it hasn't worked, it's pretty easy to see why it hasn't worked, and it's actually having the exact opposite effect. If you want to see the world you want to see, you're going to have to change tactics.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Not sure if anyone has seen the Van Jones CNN videos of him speaking to voters in Gettysburg. It's a little self-important but he does make some good points relative to this conversation. The most important one being that we need to listen to each other and really try to understand where people are coming from rather than painting them into an ideological corner. I think his approach works better than pointing and someone and yelling "racist" and I think it also works better than just ignoring them until they go away.

Link: http://www.cnn.com/videos/opinions/2...-hill-pictures

he called the election a white-lash!