This event and Brexit are proof that you cannot shame people into voting how you want. Calling them bigots over and over just galvanizes them if anything.
But a large part of the population don't share that sentiment, they're not shamed, they don't care that you're screaming "RACIST!" at the top of your lungs.
And when you address their actual concerns that globalization and automation are killing their jobs, killing their communities, and killing their people with a shrug, with an "I'm so sorry, move to the cities, get an education!", they'll get angry. And political. And here we are.
I'm a male French, in France, and I intend to vote FN (extreme right). I have higer education, 10 years of experience in programming, including 5 in 3 different countries. I have social values, like companies should take care of the humans behind the employee, and we should give our maximum to include everyone who wants to be included. I turned my back on leftist movements because no matter how generous I was (e.g. thousands donated to charities, >1200hrs of volunteering, engaged in social causes, etc), leftists always find a way to depict me as a spoiled child with rich parents, and they dismiss any good work I've made as a result of luck.
Oh and my 8-year old cousin was raped by an Arab teenager – I still don't know whether that's due to probability or whether he identifies to the Arabs-against-whites cause. It did change a lot for me.
So now that I'm freed from liberal shamers, I've decided to vote depending on only one criteria. In my whole professional experience, promotions were given to women, to the point that it was unfair to me; In my whole life women have been bitter to me. I'm pretty satisfied that there are currently hundreds of laws in favour of women which offset any inequality they can claim; The only party which proposes to keep those existing laws and not adding new ones is FN, the extreme-right French party.
All in all, what you need to gain back someone like me is love. Give me luck with finding a girlfriend, give me a fair treatment at work, recognize my social engagement and the positive parts of my values, stop assuming all my rationale is just raw racism or raw machism, stop assuming I've just been lucky with work, and you'll get me back among the centrist voters.
But as long as it's not possible to expose my problems without hearing generalizations and shaming, I'll keep voting FN.
However, I can see how emotionally it makes sense to you, and I really appreciate how you're openly sharing this stuff on such a lefty and rationalist forum like HN. This is indeed similar to how many people feel, and if we keep excluding this thought we'll never get a good dialog going.
So kudos for openly sharing what's obviously some very unpopular ideas on HN.
Unfortunately, democracy means everyone belongs. We need to take care of needs of all people, even people like me, even though I'm depressed, even though I've had an unpleasant bringing-up with bad girlfriends and hateful leftist highschool friends. Bullying someone because has later consequences in terms of democracy, and it's your responsibility.
Second, Devoxx keeps giving talks about how women are opressed, while my employer keeps promoting women who don't know what an HTTP Header is. Said promoted women keep complaining that they're paid less than their male counterparts who knew what HTTP Headers were because they had to wait 7 more years to be promoted. Is it alright that I feel a dishonest discrepancy? Is it ok that I don't have any hope for my future?
All help goes towards minorities who barely work enough to deserve their spot. Today, I'm the one who needs help. I've worked hard, but now I need a bit of love. Can anyone see that my career has been unfair when I was an employee, bcause promotions were given to women? I've created my company and it succeeded better than competitors, is that a sign that I was competent? What I need today is people who appreciate what I'm giving to the world, both in donations and hard work, and for people to stop depicting me as a white male. Hence my sentence: All I need is a bit of love, especially from liberals, to stop voting against minorities. I'm all for inclusion, and as long as "inclusion" includes shy nerds I'm ready to support everyone else.
How is a far-right party going to change that though? Society never liked nerds. It is in our genes to reject people that score low on the crude measure of fitness that evolution has imprinted in our brains.
Your suffering can perhaps be more generally be captured by the fact that the number of locally high-status positions in society is plummeting. Automatization destroys these position. While the push of minorities might have slightly impaired the selection of talent and diligence, the core issue is that there are too few jobs for the the traditional schema of diligence to make any sense. There are many people who have it far worse than you and they are being terribly confused by the contradiction that they are being told (work hard to gain status).
In my opinion, you are projecting the bad results of your love life towards the feminist movement, something like "If I cannot be happy, they don't deserve it too" (maybe you think the same in an indirect way like "why should they be happy if I'm not?"). In other words, if you were having a fulfilling loving life, you wouldn't mind the promoted women in your company or you will see it as a particular case in a country scope (realizing that there are a lot of women that really deserve that promotion but aren't getting it just for being women). But, since you are sad and depressed, you need to blame someone because of it which is either you or the women. In general, people rather blame others than themselves because if you are the problem it means that you have to work on changing yourself in order of solving it and that's a lot of work.
Take into account that nothing of all this means that you are a bad person or that you deserve to be alone. It's just that you are victimizing yourself as a way of protecting you from the apparently enormous effort of changing yourself.
How is this related to politics? Genuinely curious since you bring this up as the first way for a political party or movement to win you 'back'.
I think it is true that some people put gender/sexual tensions into their politics, especially if it is radical. Grandparent might assume that in a more traditional society his chances would be better. I can't judge if it's true.
All my life I've been shamed by leftists, mostly because I'm a white male from a good Christian family and succeeded at schools. It has had impact on my career for example, since companies decided to promote junior women instead. Leftists couldn't get over that and see the guy who needed help to be socially included. Leftists are pretty happy to see a rich person be socially rejected or committing suicide, actually. I bet many people voting Trump feel just the same: Leftists are prompt at shaming people for being privileged while not caring for their problems. We need a return of solidarity, and if not that, then we'll just vote for ourselves.
Hence, I have stopped caring for what leftists say. But if people could get enough solidarity to help me get my life fixed (the girlfriend is just an example), then I'd go back to voting normally.
Yes, I've seen a psychologist. Psychologists can fix the person, not society. If society keeps sending crap because you're a white male, nothing will repair your self-esteem.
> We need a return of solidarity
So you are voting for a party who's main concept is spewing hatred against minorities?
> But if people could get enough solidarity to help me get my life fixed
Why the fuck should leftists, right-wingers, socialists, or nazis sort your life out? You are a grown man. Sort it yourself.
Other example: A leftist (Yesterday at lunch! It's not like it never happens!) made a joke about "all priests are rapists anyway" and no-one said anything. But if anyone made a joke about "All Arabs are thieves", they'd sure face immediate forced resignation. Both are stupidly gross generalizations that no-one should ever say.
Other example: Leftists want to close the Catholic schools in France, "because they're inequal". Truth is, Catholic schools are better schools with better results and fewer violence, and that would kill the place where I was educated. The Khmers Rouges have tried eliminating the elites, that didn't bode well for them.
Hatred from leftists and from Muslim partisans is everyday. But the world has changed. We can either match your hatred with FN, or leftists can decide to stop oppressing the historical part of the population.
> Both are stupidly gross generalizations that no-one should ever say.
Except that FN says that about Arabs and other minorities, that and much more.
> Leftists want to close the Catholic schools in France
What they want and what they can achieve is very far. I want a lot of things, doesn't mean most people agree with me and that they will give those things to me.
> We can either match your hatred with FN
Or you know, take the approach a normal person should and side with neither of the crazies. As I said, extremism and hatred from either side will not solve anything. Hatred brews hatred, the only way to defeat bigotry, closed-mindedness and ignorance from one side is not by joining the opposing side. It's by taking the middle road and trying to find meaning and think with your brain.
Plus I don't vote for a party in the hope of finding a girlfriend (lol). I vote for the party who's not proposing to add up more rights to women, because I have seen enough women be promoted to be sure the problem is the other way around.
Maybe I'm having a hard time understanding this or maybe you haven't admitted it. What is this "voting normally" all about? It's clear that you don't give a damn for social pressures causing you to vote and think a certain way (normally?), because that's bit you bad. It appears that you've moved elsewhere to your own new normal (FN). If they changed and you went back, would it really be back to the same?
I've decided to forego any other criteria, because the groups are hypocritical with their values anyway. For example they pretended not to be racists (i.e. leftists / the President Hollande in France), but they saw nothing wrong in house-arresting 3,200 Muslims the day after the terrorist attacks, without warrant and without further proof than being filed under the "very Muslim" folder in the police notes. It wasn't necessary, it didn't yield any terrorist being arrested, and I qualify this act as a very racist action from a leftist president. I could go on and on about how leftist people fight for jobs but have never created any and have made it a burden to run a company. There is no hope in any political party of France driving France towards any kind of success, all of them will keep engaging in a sort of class warfare where anyone who's rich is considered evil, so I'll vote on the only issue that I can factually compare and on which I became expert: Their programs about women-and-men equality.
As it stands, both left and right parties propose to add up many more rights for women. See this post to quickly understand why I don't think it's fair: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12923138
All I've seen was a gross exaggeration of women's case: For example it's always the gross average of wage gap (32%) that is shown in the article's titles, and I've checked around me that no woman is aware that the average wage gap is only 8% for the same level of education and experience in the job, and the average goes the other way depending on the criteria we use (e.g. women get paid 22% more than men in Atlanta and 15% more in NY).
Also, in France, all other statistics conclude to men needing more help, while women still complain that they don't get enough: There are 18x more men who face violence on the street than women, 0.77x who get high-education degree, 2x (TWICE!) more men who are homeless, 3x who commit suicide and 20x more men in prison, so I'm a little flummoxed when I hear "Women are inequal". Examples on the same trend go on and on, see for example positive images that are associated to females ("They can do 2 things at the same time!"), negative/violent images associated to men; better education results in women than men; mark bias in mathematics in favor of women; solidarity statistics that are all favorable to women; and women keep dating richer men while high-pay jobs are more difficult for us to have, so it's a real struggle.
See for yourself: http://femmes.gouv.fr and no http://hommes.gouv.fr .
Men deserve dedicated help too. I'm not asking we stop helping women. I'm just asking we help men just as much, because men actually have more problems in life than women. You know, like, ...equality?
So, "white male dominant hierarchy placed oppressive burdens on the groups" doesn't trigger my solidarity anymore. Look at helping everyone who need help, instead of blaming a group for being white.
On the other hand, because of the way you've chosen to present yourself and the issues you want to plant your flag on, I also can't help but wonder how much time you have spent looking at yourself to see how much of this is your responsibility.
I'm sorry, but what the fuck does that have to do with politics? What political party is going to promise you a girlfriend?
For what it's worth, you're proving the populist-narrative that explains why Trump was elected: Trump rose to power by assuring those who felt that they once had 'power', who've lost it (to minorities or women or whoever), and deserve to have it back again.
You've unframed and changed my speech so much that it looks stupid. Obviously, you conclude that this is stupid: You're right!
I'm saying: If you don't want me to vote for Trump/FN, then instead of shaming me all the time "because he's from a rich familiy, therefore he doesn't deserve consideration, even if he works hard and donates a lot", try to intervene at the private/social level by having solidarity with people's situation. If you give those people some love, and fix their lives, they'll start voting differently.
Here is what you could have said (the very short version):
You could have made a good point that part of the problem of getting a girl friend is the freakin' amount of uncertainty in our lives. You can't be sure where you live and where you get an income from. That is a big problem for stable relationships.
After reading more of your comments I'm not sure if you actually meant it literally though, meaning your own personal issues instead of the wider political picture, which I would not want to comment on.
1. You don't have a girlfriend
2. You blame an entire race for your cousin being raped
3. Women were promoted
4. You feel society owes you thanks and praise.
But you're not a spoiled child.
You are putting words into his mouth. His description of the event was entirely about a fact.
Quote for reference.
> Oh and my 8-year old cousin was raped by an Arab teenager – I still don't know whether that's due to probability or whether he identifies to the Arabs-against-whites cause. It did change a lot for me.
I'm entierly entitled to evaluate several hypothesis from this event (4 exactly: Teenage, earning power, education, and cultural community differences where race is one data point), and take resolutions to avoid getting in this situation again.
Anyway, if you're not happy with that, don't rape people.
Hey, is that a dog whistle in your pocket?
Your strategy has a name: "lutte des classes" (class warfare), and you daily complain that all you get is Brexit, Trump and FN. A little understanding for your opponent's problems would go a long way in having solidarity in a country, but good luck talking about cross-class solidarity to a socialist.
I completely agree with you as well, so tired of feminism, leftish idiocracy, hate on white males etc etc.
Funny thing is that I am also an environmentalist, I deeply care about climate issues. That is the part that scares me about Trump. I don't understand the need to deny that shit.
Next up is Le Pen winning in France and then Sweden Democrats in Sweden.
unfortunately mental health is all too often a taboo subject but it shouldn't and needn't be.
wish you the best
If these kids would get sex, they would bomb themselves.
Now someone bring that up as an explanation to vote FN. This aligns with my theory.
- get a new shirt that fits you well
- go out, some bar would do
- spot a girl that you actually like, don't be shy. Look her in the eyes
- don't talk about politics and concentrate on her. Compliments are welcome, especially if not phony
- be ready for a normal debugging session of trial&error, plus starting over and rethinking your approach
- you don't need "luck", persistence would do
Other options: some of the east EU countries have higher proportions of young(er) women than men, having French accent would be extra bonus too.
>> Given how butthurt I am with the topic, I admit that this discovery would hurt me a lot. <<
Why hurt - you'd get to have a better/happier life. You should not be dwelling on the past, "could/should/might have been" - no important, concentrate on the task at hand and what matters for you. No one has all the answers and clues, regardless how smart they are. The point is: if you don't try, you won't succeed for certain.
I can tell you as someone in silicon valley who sort of vaguely supports trump, that I have been essentially not permitted to talk about it. What's the benefit to it? Why would I speak up and engage in a conversation? Any talk of Trump here isn't actually a real debate. It's everyone around you saying "Trump supporters are racists and bigots. They are disgusting."
Nobody _actually_ wants to hear any arguments from the other side. So I sit with my mouth closed. It's better than losing my friends and having my coworkers ostracize me for my political views. Which maybe they would have the chance to change if they were willing to listen, but aren't.
I know so many people like myself. I was surprised with the result of the election, but not surprised at the fact that there was a surprise like this. Places like SV don't know how many Trump supporters there are or even _why_ they really support him, because they've essentially put their hands over their eyes and their ears and spun in circles shouting "Trump is racist! You are racist!"
I would actually like to hear your case for Trump.
It's not that bigotry is a non-issue in these elections, it definitely is, the KKK endorsed a presidential candidate after all. The issue is that there are deeper underlying problems that are being exploited by race baiting politicians to win elections. The problem in pre-Nazi Germany, for example, was a deeply dysfunctional economy and trying to seek a scape-goat for the loss of WWI and the shame and humiliation that caused. Today the problem is largely economic inequality and a lack of economic opportunity and mobility for most people in the bottom half of the wealth distribution. Wages have stagnated while housing, college, and healthcare costs have skyrocketed. The recent recession left a huge crater in the economic histories and career developments of most folks under 30 in the form of unemployment and under-employment. Outside of the cities there hasn't been an economic recovery in the last decade. On top of that you have the opiate epidemic. It's gotten so severe that life expectancies for middle aged folks in middle America took a significant hit (due substantially to increases in suicide and deaths from alcoholism and drug overdose). All of that has nothing to do with gay marriage, Syrian refugees, or increased awareness of police brutality.
But a lot of the people who have been disadvantaged over the last few decades have been able to be convinced by demagogues that the cause of their problems is the elite establishment (especially liberals) and to capitalize on latent feelings of racism, anti-gay sentiment, etc. Make no mistake those bigots are not the entirety of the vote, but they are enough of it to swing the election. More so, as in Britain, there is a huge section of the electorate who may not be intrinsically bigoted per se but is perfectly content to sit around and run in a pack with true bigots and to support candidates and policies that will rollback progress in racial, gender, and sexual orientation equality. Sufficiently advanced indifference to issues of racial equality is indistinguishable from bigotry.
You're right that you can't fix this by calling everyone who voted for these things bigots, almost certainly not. But ignoring that aspect doesn't lead to a good outcome either. It's necessary to fix the underlying economic problems while at the same time maintaining a hard line on driving forward to improve equality, enfranchisement, etc.
Calling leave voters racists achieved nothing and only strengthened their views. It was obvious when Trump voters appropriated the term Deplorables that personal attacks were going to fail. All you did was cause the polls to not reflect the final vote because people would say Hilary when asked but put an X next to Trump in private.
Merkel is also relatively popular with many non-CDU/CSU voters because her policies all in all have been very moderate. She's generally perceived as very static despite having had to deal with the economic crisis, the refugee situation and now Brexit.
The rise of the AfD is largely a result of conservatives (who probably would have voted CDU/CSU otherwise) being upset with Merkel's handling of the refugee situation. The far left still hates her because she's a conservative, the far right hates her because she's too liberal. She's in the sweet spot where her policies are just balanced enough nobody can propose any sane alternatives that don't sound like almost exactly what she's been doing and any criticism either sounds petty or hyperbolic.
The problem for the SPD is that they alienated their leftist demographic under Schröder (leading to the rise in popularity of the Linke) and later with the coalition government aside the CDU/CSU. Aside from traditional party loyalists they're now directly competing with the CDU/CSU for conservative voters.
The only thing that concerns me is that the CSU is taking a lesson from the revival of the AfD (which was pretty much doomed to fail when the Euro crisis waned but was rekindled by the refugee situation) and is now spouting even more populist xenophobic rhetoric than usual. Considering how much disproportionate influence the CSU traditionally holds in the Union, this might spell trouble for the CDU internally.
As an anecdote: I would never have voted for the CDU (I've previously voted for Linke and the Pirate Party) but unless one of the other parties surprises me with a great candidate, I would probably vote to re-elect Merkel.
And let's not forget that the GamerGate fiasco shared a lot of things in common with Brexit and Trump's presidency in how the media covered it too. The media tried to attack people over and over while painting those it disagreed with as bigots, and it worked about as poorly then as it did with this election and Trump supporters.
But no, same general pattern occurred with both Brexit and Trump, with similar results.
https://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_Interracial_Marriage,_Amendm...
Should that be outlawed too?
Well, that's the social side of it. The rest of the election was about economic factors.
The fact that the bad guys can hold out for a while before losing doesn't cease to make them the bad guys.
They were seceding proactively to protect slavery which was in their mind threatened; we weren't fighting the war to ban slavery but to prevent them from leaving.
I agree. I am refraining from commenting elsewhere in this thread because I really just don't know WHO I would piss off, and this alias is tangentially tied to my IRL identity.
Self-censorship is a sneaky, evil, corrupting beast.
But the more I learned about it, the more I realized how the narrative was shaped by people outside of Mozilla being offended on behalf of others (although there were apparently one or two displeased employees).
That was also the last time I took online moral outrage serious. It doesn't matter whether it's SJWs shaming supposed racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia or the religious right shaming supposed anti-Christians/Satanists. The outrage is almost always overblown and rarely justified.
Sometimes there's some truth to a particular story but if the leading narrative paints someone as unambiguously evil, it's almost always a complete fabrication.
Originally ,that was what the conservatives side supposed to be about: consistent small changes to society that can be rolled back, to make sure that the result works.
Viewing in that lense, things like constitutional originalist makes sense since the justices are essentially just saying "if you to change things, go through the whole amendment process", which is slow and stable.
I'm not sure if the changes can be attributed to either the left or right, but the result is that the left is now trying to make sweeping changes, the right turned into a rose-tinted extreme that goes "past is better".
Give me a break.
Well, without jokes, tyranny of the majority is the topic, which is studied in political science, a complicated one actually.
Stopping her from doing that is throat-shoving. Her freedom to make her life with a particular someone doesn't harm anybody. _You_ cannot disregard _her_ feelings.