PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[photon]

Bwahahaha

EDIT: Hm.. didn't work, changed to link.

https://youtu.be/yve_oz-D5nI?t=140

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Damn, that's an extreme reaction.

I understand that the intent is equality. I've no difficulty understanding the motivation behind people behaving this way, and the end result they want to achieve. However, the method is to divide people into categories based on identity (race, gender, sexual orientation), and suggest that people are inherently different solely by virtue of their membership in a particular category. Their views on certain issues are inherently more valid or credible, and as a corollary, other peoples' views are less credible because of their membership in a different category (usually on the basis of perceived or actual power imbalances). For example, "It's easy for you to take that position; you're not a X", where X is a disadvantaged group. That's the divisive aspect of identity politics that I object to - both in principle, and from the pragmatic perspective that I think it just backfires and creates resentment and balkanized groups that don't talk to each other.

I really think you need to stop putting the pedal on the floor and jumping right to "YOU CLEARLY DON'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING I'M CALLING YOU OUT YOUR PERSPECTIVE IS INSULTING WE'RE DONE TALKING", after giving the least charitable interpretation possible to a position of political philosophy. I wasn't insulting you, I wasn't being sarcastic or patronizing or trolling you. I could maybe understand this reaction if I'd done that; some people on here do nothing but that, maybe I do it sometimes, but I wasn't. I was just disagreeing with you, respectfully. Calm down a bit.

I'm calm, you're confusing my bewilderment with anger and emotion. I noticed you accuse others of giving you uncharitable interpretations. Just do better. You're asking for a charitable interpretation but your interpretation of my post was that I'm reacting "extreme"? and you had to rephrase it in all caps to make that point? and "we're done talking" did I say that? You very often ask for something (whether it be charitable interpretations, avoidance of "tribalism," not escalating something with insults) but you don't offer the same. You're here doing all of the things you don't want others to do... people see that. Posters see you getting insulted because you have uncharitable interpretations of others posts, or calling others elitist and annoying because you don't like how they're saying something, or dividing people into groups and saying "that group, they're wrong, they matter less".

Being insulted by your view of identity politics isn't to say you're horrible and you should feel bad. It's truly just insulting. I can be told the "politics" that help me be seen as more equal and respected as a basic human are poisonous and divisive and just created so I can be "different" and not get emotional. Don't just assume I'm triggered and can't take it. I've heard worse.

I respect that you don't like being told your opinion matters a little less because you don't have experience. Don't you believe experiences add validity... or a lack thereof take it away?

If I say a GSA is an important thing that every school should have and a straight person says "No it's not, we don't need those," do you REALLY object to my belief that it's easier for someone who doesn't need it to take a position against it?

The problem is that the modern right is triggered by the idea that they might not know something or that they might be even a tiny bit responsible for the oppression of a group THEY created, that they labelled as different or lesser. Groups that are suddenly saying "you know what, we're the same as you, and until you acknowledge that and treat us that way, we're going to fight for that recognition."

"Oh, you're a woman? Black? Gay? etc. Well, you're different, and for now... you're just a little less human than the rest of us."

New wave identity politics didn't create this. It's fighting it. This is not at the discussion level, this is actual fact. The method of division you're talking about was created long before people ever started fighting for equality.

It just seems like a really academic defence of (or outright ignorance regarding) the racism, sexism, and homophobia that actually caused the division. To blame that division on the fight for equal rights brings me back to my original feeling... bewilderment.

[missdpuck]

Watching cbsn live ; they're talking to Trump supporters.

Very odd to say the least. Definitely look for the replay.

When asked if Trump is going back on his promises, one guy said, oh, it was part of his strategy to not reveal what he's going to do.

Okay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Senator Clay Davis]

One event sure can change a lot of opinions

[photon]

In an election where Trump won the presidency on 107,000 votes, voter rights is something to watch closely.

The headline example is Wisconsin, where a Republican-backed law requiring voters to produce one of a limited number of acceptable photo IDs was in effect for the first time. Studies show — and some Republicans admit — that such laws disproportionately reduce Democratic turnout because many of the laws require IDs that low-income and immigrant voters, who are often Democrats, frequently lack.

In Milwaukee, where turnout dropped 41,000 votes from the 2012 total, the chief elections official said on Friday that declines in voting were greatest in areas where lack of IDs was most common. Donald J. Trump won Wisconsin by about 27,000 votes.

No conclusion can be drawn on the impact of the ID requirement until voting data is analyzed, said Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a law professor at the University of Chicago and an election law expert. But “it’s at least a reasonable hypothesis that voting restrictions made a major difference in places like Wisconsin,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us...tion-2016.html

[Montana Moe]

[Weitz]

Is it really that crazy to expect photo ID to be able to vote?

[PsYcNeT]

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Is it really that crazy to expect photo ID to be able to vote?

Yes it is, democracies all over the world manage to function without that requirement, countries like Canada.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I'm calm, you're confusing my bewilderment with anger and emotion. I noticed you accuse others of giving you uncharitable interpretations. Just do better. You're asking for a charitable interpretation but your interpretation of my post was that I'm reacting "extreme"? and you had to rephrase it in all caps to make that point? and "we're done talking" did I say that? You very often ask for something (whether it be charitable interpretations, avoidance of "tribalism," not escalating something with insults) but you don't offer the same. You're here doing all of the things you don't want others to do... people see that. Posters see you getting insulted because you have uncharitable interpretations of others posts, or calling others elitist and annoying because you don't like how they're saying something, or dividing people into groups and saying "that group, they're wrong, they matter less".

You seem really worked up and defensive, like you're armed for internet battle. All I did was disagree with you, your reaction was that my disagreement was insulting, and proved I didn't know anything about the subject and that I needed to be "called out". That's what I meant by an extreme reaction. How can we have a conversation about the topic when that's your response? I'm trying not to reciprocate that tone and just explain my position.

Being insulted by your view of identity politics isn't to say you're horrible and you should feel bad. It's truly just insulting. I can be told the "politics" that help me be seen as more equal and respected as a basic human are poisonous and divisive and just created so I can be "different" and not get emotional. Don't just assume I'm triggered and can't take it. I've heard worse.

I'm not assuming anything - your reaction was very obviously indignant; as you say, you're "insulted". Again, all I did was disagree with you. My view isn't an insult to you personally, it's an assessment of your politics and the flaws I see in it. I think you're wrong about this, I don't think the consequences of your viewpoint are ultimately good. In the end, we want the same thing, and I don't agree that your way of looking at the world is the best way to get there. I also think it makes assumptions that aren't necessarily true, and as a result can potentially lead to discrediting useful contributions from people on the basis of inherent characteristics, while elevating positions that don't make much sense on the same basis. In short, I don't think it's a good methodology for analyzing and responding to political problems.

If you take that as a personal affront because of who you are and your personal experience and subjective viewpoint, and get all worked up and confrontational, then you're sort of proving the part of my point about how we can't have reasonable conversations about these topics.

I respect that you don't like being told your opinion matters a little less because you don't have experience. Don't you believe experiences add validity... or a lack thereof take it away?

See, this is a reasonable request for clarification of my view. Yes, I think experiences can add value to a position. What I disagree with is the notion that a person inherently has had valuable experience simply because of the fact of their race, for example - that shouldn't be assumed. But that's far less important than the fact that even if that experience could influence a person's views and provide them with greater insight, it doesn't necessarily mean that it does so.

I'll give you an example, and this is not meant as a comparison so don't get upset by it, it's meant to illustrate the point that experience doesn't necessarily provide some inherent additional validity. I have never had a person close to me murdered. The experience of having someone close to me murdered might alter my views on the appropriate punishment for murder. But it wouldn't necessarily improve those views, from a public policy perspective. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. But my views are either valid and reasonable or they aren't - they're independent from my character, background and personal experience, even if they may have been influenced by those factors.

If I say a GSA is an important thing that every school should have and a straight person says "No it's not, we don't need those," do you REALLY object to my belief that it's easier for someone who doesn't need it to take a position against it?

Yes, because it de-legitimizes the person's position for the wrong reason. You're essentially saying they're wrong because they're straight. Being straight makes them inherently less able to understand why a GSA is a good thing. It might be true that a person's experience as a gay man helps them develop a cogent, reasonable position about GSA's, but that position isn't valid because the person holding it is gay. More importantly, if you think GSAs are valuable, and I do, then this hypothetical guy is wrong. He's not wrong because he's straight, he's wrong for many other, objectively true reasons.

The problem is that the modern right is triggered by the idea that they might not know something or that they might be even a tiny bit responsible for the oppression of a group THEY created, that they labelled as different or lesser. Groups that are suddenly saying "you know what, we're the same as you, and until you acknowledge that and treat us that way, we're going to fight for that recognition."

I think there are a lot of people who would say, "we have no problem with the proposition that you're the same as us and deserve to be treated the same; what we object to is your presumption that we're biased or that our opinions matter less than yours because of the colour of our skin or who we sleep with".

It just seems like a really academic defence of (or outright ignorance regarding) the racism, sexism, and homophobia that actually caused the division. To blame that division on the fight for equal rights brings me back to my original feeling... bewilderment.

No, see, this is where I should be insulted, because you've just accused me of defending racism and sexism or being ignorant of it. I'm none of those things. What I'm positing is that identity politics, as a mode of looking at the world, is a bad way to solve these problems.

[MacDaddy77]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Yes it is, democracies all over the world manage to function without that requirement, countries like Canada.

what are you talking about? Id is required in Canada. every time I voted anyway

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx...t=index&lang=e

[troutman]

One Way To Bridge The Political Divide: Read The Book That's Not For You

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/501975...m_content=2042

Lisa Lucas, head of the National Book Foundation, recommends one way to understand the other side: read.

Lucas is an avid social media user, but she doesn't believe Twitter will ever replace books — they're just too different. You don't scroll through a book quickly while waiting in line for a latte. When you read a book, you enter another world, and you have to spend time in that world. Reading a book, Lucas says, is a "protracted engagement" with people who are different from you personally, culturally and — perhaps most important at this moment — politically.

"We all need to be reading across the lines we've drawn in our lives," she says.

For her friends and colleagues in New York City, that may mean picking up one of this year's nonfiction finalists, Strangers in Their Own Land by Arlie Russell Hochschild about Tea Party conservatives in Louisiana's bayou country. And Lucas wishes the people Hochschild interviewed for her book would read last year's nonfiction winner, Between the World and Me by Ta-Nehisi Coates, about what it means to be black in America.

[aside - Coates is also the author of the new Black Panther book for Marvel Comics. Quite the get for Marvel]

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

what are you talking about? Id is required in Canada. every time I voted anyway

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx...t=index&lang=e

Photo ID is not a requirement like it is in Wisconsin and many other states. There are 50+ forms of acceptable non-photo ID in that link that can be used to vote in Canada.

Unless there is evidence of voter fraud, keeping the barriers to voting as low as possible is vital to a healthy democracy.

[photon]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

what are you talking about? Id is required in Canada. every time I voted anyway

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx...t=index&lang=e

Photo ID, elections Canada will accept bills, library cards, prescription labels, letter from your kid's teacher, almost anything that doesn't require a photo.

There were lots of stories during the election about people spending months and money trying to get the photo ID required to vote, having to drive across the state, etc.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

what are you talking about? Id is required in Canada. every time I voted anyway

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx...t=index&lang=e

Photo ID is not.

Voter Suppression in the United States is now often predicated upon photo ID.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by photon

Photo ID, elections Canada will accept bills, library cards, prescription labels, letter from your kid's teacher, almost anything that doesn't require a photo.

You actually don't even need anything with your address, technically - you can just show up with two documents that have your name on them, and a friend from the same riding who will vouch for where you live. Although they themselves then need to have proof of address.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

No, see, this is where I should be insulted, because you've just accused me of defending racism and sexism or being ignorant of it. I'm none of those things. What I'm positing is that identity politics, as a mode of looking at the world, is a bad way to solve these problems.

Whoa, I didn't accuse you of that, it's just an assessment of your reasoning and the flaws I see in it. All I did was disagree with you. I'm sorry my use of language triggered you.

In the end, you need to understand why identity politics exist, I don't think you do. You're looking at a problem and pointing to the result and confusing it with the cause. Identity politics are not a mode of looking at the world that any minority chose. It was formed by discrimination, and it will die out as soon as that discrimination ceases to exist. As I said earlier, tribalism exists only as long as it has to, the end goal is not an end to that human instinct, but making the tribe so big that the lines don't exist within the group (or do, but in harmless ways like being a fan of opposing teams).

You will never get to where you want to be with people you disagree with if you expect much more of them than you do of yourself. If you continue to call those people you disagree with (or whose method you disagree with) elitist, annoying, emotional, indignant, categorise them into groups and disregard them, painting people with the same brush... you really can't ask of them any different. You use the same tactics you accuse the RL of using, but it's against people who act that way... so it's ok? I thought that's what made people dig in and hurt our ability to have a conversation?

The best way to the solution you're after is to be part of it. Start with that, then tackle the big stuff like changing a whole political trend.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Whoa, I didn't accuse you of that, it's just an assessment of your reasoning and the flaws I see in it. All I did was disagree with you. I'm sorry my use of language triggered you.

Didn't I just quote you saying exactly that, though? Were you not accusing me of making "a really academic defence of (or outright ignorance regarding) the racism, sexism, and homophobia"? Because I wasn't, and suggesting that I was is basically just you unfairly casting aspersions on my character. Suggesting that I'm defending racism and sexism and homophobia is basically calling me tacitly racist and sexist and homophobic. Can you see why that might upset someone?

In the end, you need to understand why identity politics exist, I don't think you do. You're looking at a problem and pointing to the result and confusing it with the cause. Identity politics are not a mode of looking at the world that any minority chose. It was formed by discrimination, and it will die out as soon as that discrimination ceases to exist. As I said earlier, tribalism exists only as long as it has to, the end goal is not an end to that human instinct, but making the tribe so big that the lines don't exist within the group (or do, but in harmless ways like being a fan of opposing teams).

I don't think you're right that identity politics are some necessary and automatic result of discrimination. I do agree with you that the tribe we should all belong to is "homo sapiens", but I really think that that's a choice that anyone can make at any time.

You will never get to where you want to be with people you disagree with if you expect much more of them than you do of yourself. If you continue to call those people you disagree with (or whose method you disagree with) elitist, annoying, emotional, indignant

You're right that I probably shouldn't have called Resalien elitist, I was just annoyed by his drive by. But noting someone's emotional, indignant response to an honest expression of political disagreement, which I in no way worded in an insulting or incendiary fashion, isn't unreasonable. You came back at me guns blazing, and you're still doing it. If we were having this conversation in person, and you stood up and started raising your voice, it'd be reasonable to tell you to calm down and let's talk in a measured way about where you think I've gone wrong here.

As Cliff just mentioned, I'm pro-gun-control, pro-science, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-women's rights, pro-secular, in favour of progressive taxation and social safety nets, against punitive sentencing and for health care as a universal right. If you and I can't have a conversation about our methods for getting to those goals without acrimony and taking offense or personal insult, we've got a huge problem.

The best way to the solution you're after is to be part of it. Start with that, then tackle the big stuff like changing a whole political trend.

You've presumed that "being a part of the solution" is agreeing with you on how to solve the problem. You can't say, "if you agree with me on the goal we're after, then in order to be a part of the solution, you have to accept that I'm right that this is how we fix things". That's not a reasonable request. If we're driving to Banff and I see you start heading East, I'm going to try to get you to turn the car around.

[nik-]

This thread is a cradle of sadness.

[Flash Walken]

Corsi, you're projecting so hard about pepsi's emotional state that you should consider a career in pornography.