Hacker News Reader

Comment by masondixon | Hacker News Reader

A huge issue today is the lack of calm, reasoned debate.

As a Trump supporter I have never been able to properly explain the rationale to a liberal. I believe there is a worthy debate beneath all the political smear, but it is never reached. I believe the reason for this is the liberal media and the incredibly effective Democratic party election machine.

The argument stays at the high level of "how could you vote for someone who said that", "he is a monster", etc. It is "I don't want to listen".

All you have to do to realise what is wrong with this is to ask yourself: "What happens if the situation is reversed and someone said they don't want to listen to me?". What if someone else started to restrict what I could say?

Thankfully, freedom of speech is such an integral part of the US, that there is not one side trying to control what the other can say, and the other doing the same back.

This is what makes the country work. The fact that both sides are not in the business of restricting free speech. This doesn't hold true in many other countries.

View on HN

> Thankfully, freedom of speech is such an integral part of the US, that there is not one side trying to control what the other can say, and the other doing the same back.

Sure, you and Donald Trump can say whatever you please. Nobody's restricting your freedom of speech. However, what you say betrays who you are. And what Trump said showed he's a liar, misogynist, tech illiterate, arrogant and overall a disgusting human being.

> "What happens if the situation is reversed and someone said they don't want to listen to me?"

People listen up until the point you prove to them you're not worth listening to.

> People listen up until the point you prove to them you're not worth listening to.

And they decide that based on emotions, which marks them as not being capable of rational discussions.

After losing control of the entire government, there is still this sense of: "I don't need to engage in debate with you". Its just not rationale.

People should ask themselves deeply why this happened and start researching. Because that would be a rational response, not "protesting" with destroying property.

100% agree with this. Specifically, I'm trying to do three things right now...

1. Investigate "why"

2. Avoid partisan statements

3. Ask myself, if it were Obama instead of Trump would I feel the same way. And if the answer is no, I keep searching for the right message.

The main lesson learned from Trump's campaign is that "rational" is far less important than "belief" and "story".

Here's what seems irrational from my perspective:

1. Bob votes to elect Mike Pence, who takes the position "Homosexuality is incompatible with military service" [mikepence.com]

2. Dan, who is homosexual and in the military and Facebook friends with Bob since they started hanging out in college, finds out Bob voted for Mike Pence.

3. Dan says to Bob, "Yo man, that's pretty bigoted of you to vote for that guy."

4. Bob says I'm not a bigot.

5. Bob doesn't empathize with Dan or understand that Dan is really just pissed Bob took away his ability to serve the country in the military by electing Mike Pence.

[mikepence.com]: https://web.archive.org/web/20020206052612/http://www.mikepe...

6. Dan doesn't understand or empathize with Bob that while Bob may or may not approve just one aspect of a politician but that believes Pence is better than 'x' and thus is also a bigot.

I think that's where we disagree.

Given, Dan can't change the fact he's gay.

Given, Mike Pence has formally expressed that "Homosexuality is incompatible with military service" and signed into law legislation allowing businesses in Indiana to kick out gay customers when he was governor of Indiana.

Given, Mike Pence's party controls the Congress, Executive, and Legislative branches of government.

It follows it is likely harmful to homosexual people to elect Mike Pence. And the burden for explaining why that risk is okay falls on the people who vote for Pence and who don't want to be seen as racist, because it sure looks racist.

> It follows it is likely harmful to homosexual people to elect Mike Pence. And the burden for explaining why that risk is okay falls on the people who vote

If an establishment candidate like Hillary is seen as harmful to Bob, is there a burden on Dan to explain why the risk of voting for her is Ok?

Maybe, can you put your example in context?

Bob doesn't want to be drafted into a war with Russia, say.

I'm pretty sure if you said to someone that you were worried a vote for Clinton is a vote for war with Russia then that person would understand what you meant. A person might disagree with you, but a person is not going to worry you feel the way you do because of their skin color or religion.

Does that distinction make sense?

So if the other candidate was Hitler (and happened to support homosexuals in the military)...Bob is a bigot unless he supports Hitler.

Taking the extreme positions in a logical argument help to reveal the inconsistencies.

Its all about what each party prioritises.

The liberals prioritised certain things above all else. Its a very principaled yet emotional approach.

That could easily be a rational decision.

> And they decide that based on emotions

No it could not. What you just said defies reason.

I am saying what you just quoted is not always the case. To say "and they decide that based on emotions" is entirely unfounded. Plenty of people do, sure, but plenty do not.

As an aside, I should note that weighing ones' emotions in a decision is not an inherently irrational process.

ok understood

> The argument stays at the high level of "how could you vote for someone who said that", "he is a monster", etc. It is "I don't want to listen".

>> And what Trump said showed he's a liar, misogynist, tech illiterate, arrogant and overall a disgusting human being.

And Clinton is not a liar, not a tech illiterate, not arrogant, and not disgusting human being? On misogyny - she has never attacked a woman's character before?

Bias, bias, bias, and bias.

> People listen up until the point you prove to them you're not worth listening to.

Do you believe you are rationale. Everyone is saying that you lost the election because you didn't listen. This has real consequences. ACA will be repealed. Etc. Etc.

And you still have the attitude of: "I don't want to listen". All I can say is thank you - because now it doesn't matter anymore.

You can argue that a lot of people (Democrats included) didn't want to vote for Clinton either. By that argument you're justifying both candidates' character flaws by saying "Well, you know the other person is just as bad as my choice, so that makes it OK".

> "Well, you know the other person is just as bad as my choice, so that makes it OK"

That is perfectly logical in a 2 (effectively) candidate election

I wasn't agreeing with the claims against Trump. I think they are wrong. I was commenting on the fact that you can find arguments for all those claims for Clinton. Which cancels out the argument - and requires each claim to be taken by itself without supporting evidence and reasoned arguments.

The libs got to use to not having to back up their claims through a confirmation bias from their echo chamber.

Except they're a classic smokescreen - every time one is refuted (and they all are, through expensive pointless investigation) another is invented to fill airtime.

This is where I disagree. There are so many analagous examples for Clinton its not funny.

This election I really saw the "liberal media" that everyone always talks about. Clinton had such a history that it made it clear as day. "Super predators", Jewish slurs, all the emails, Hillary's treatment of women after Bill's affairs, etc, etc.

Look at the NYTimes front pages during the election.

What I don't understand is that you're telling us how you feel bullied by the libs using generalities, and in doing that you're labeling me a "lib" and doing so in a way that comes across as talking down to me.

I'm not defending the behavior of Democratic Party supporters, but can you recognize the hypocrisy in your behavior just now?

Racist is an attribute of a group. Libs is the name of a group. I think its different.

I am not using libs as a derogatory term. Liberals vs conservatives. Left vs right. I think the division is pretty clear.

I absolutely don't mean to come across talking down to you :)

On the internet, without body language, it's hard to read tone of delivery. Thanks for the note back, and cool :-)

> justifying both candidates' character flaws

> so that makes it OK

How? This is your interpretation.

If you have a choice of two, you must pick one. You have to weight up the options. choosing one doesn't automatically mean endorsing it as the post possible choice, but just the better of the given options.

No, you don't. Most democratic voting systems allow abstention for precisely this reason. In the UK you're allowed to 'spoil' your ballot paper so that it's deemed invalid.

If done properly then abstention is a perfectly valid alternative to not voting at all, because your vote means it's more difficult for the parties to obtain a majority. If you don't vote then (ideally) you have no effect on the numbers. Whether this is how the US system works, I don't know, hence the ideally.

> he's a liar,

No doubt. ALL politicians are to some extent.

> misogynist,

because? Misogyny is literally HATRED of women, like, treating them really harsh. I dont think the democrats were convincing at that

> tech illiterate,

He seems to be handling twitter quite great

> arrogant

No doubt about that but sociopathy is a frequent characteristic of leaders

> and overall a disgusting human being

Disgust is visceral aversion, and can be very personal. Not an argument

Are you willing to negotiate any of your positions or are they set in stone? It seems the liberals went full hard-line mode, and ignored half of america.

> People listen up until the point you prove to them you're not worth listening to.

So basically , what the others say is garbage, deplorables, end of conversation. That's the point, swjs broke off the conversation with "you know what i m not arguing with you, you re a deplorable". Thats not how you convince people, you have to try harder.

disclosure: i m not american but watched the war of words from afar.

> Misogyny is literally HATRED of women

No, it's not. I won't quote dictionaries, you can look it up on wikipedia. You can also find compilations of all the offensive remarks he made regarding women.

> ALL politicians are to some extent.

True. Indeed, we're all liars. However, Trump seems to disregard the truth when it stands right next to him. Even in the face of irrefutable proof he doesn't back down. That's worse than lying.

> He seems to be handling twitter quite great

I wouldn't call handling twitter tech literacy, but he's taking an aggressive stance against Apple's privacy policy for example.

> Disgust is visceral aversion, and can be very personal. Not an argument

I kindly disagree. At some point so much garbage is piled up you can't help but sum it up in a very personal way: disgusting. Also, as a human being I can't help but have feelings. And I would argue they're a rational response to everything I witnessed this election.

> No, it's not. I won't quote dictionaries, you can look it up on wikipedia.

You bring up an interesting point. The definition of "Misogyny" in wikipedia in 2004:

Misogyny is an exaggerated pathological aversion towards women.

became in 2016:

Misogyny is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls.

I can't help but see the broadening of the definition throughout the years. It happens a lot with words ending in '-phobia' as well. Food for thought.

For the record the word miso-gyny etymologically means "hatred of women"

Whatever the reason for the broadening of the definition (I would consider progress), it doesn't change the fact that people today use it with the definition it has today. Just like "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet", so would his attitude towards women by any other name would smell just as bad.

let's put trump aside. There are nuances in the way we talk which have been lost. People from both sides use extreme language willy-nilly like racist, sexist, fascist. These words are serious accusations not mild epithets. This creates a culture where middle ground does not exist, you are either with us or you're the enemy, which is madness. E.g. I don't like smokers, but i don't hate them.

Exactamundo

Sorry but your comment simply indicates the problem.

It's quite similar to the post-Brexit discussions, how pro-Bexit people are stupid, etc.

We can talk about what a "liar, misogynist, tech illiterate, arrogant and overall a disgusting human being" he is all we want. It would probably be fine, as in it wouldn't really matter, if he was some random radical weirdo with an audience of a dozen equally weird folks. But he's the President-elect.

So we can continue with this circle jerk rant about what a disgusting human being is and what his voters are like. Or we can try to actually understand why so many people voted for him. But in order to do that, we need to stop the whole rant that never changes.

I am not pro-Trump. In fact, my safety largely depends on NATO and Trump poses a threat. But there's no point in shouting about what a misogynist he is. It's so counterproductive.

I also think the shouting of "liar, misogynist, ..." -- that type of reaction by people, to call others names -- is a component of what led people to vote for Trump.

So you think it's ok to say everything Trump said during his campaign, and NOT be called out for it because... it's wrong to call people names?

Call him out, but keep listening. Those names are used to justify shutting down the discussion.

Great point.

Racist and misogynist are very heavy terms, and once they are in the mix, there is no way a moderate is going to go near the discussion. It is like "you are racist, racists shouldn't be listened to, I will not listen to you".

There have been so many comments like this in this thread - even when the original comment is pointing this out. Sigh.

Its so great to learn something I did not think of during a discussion like this. Its exactly what its for.

I'd like to quote another comment of yours:

> Bias, bias, bias, and bias.

And also share with you a special kind of bias you might be victim of: confirmation bias.

Also your quotes:

> Racist and misogynist are very heavy terms

> On misogyny - she (Clinton) has never attacked a woman's character before?

So, misogyny is a very heavy term, but you consider it's ok to attribute it to someone who simply attacks a woman's character (which actually has nothing to do with any definition of misogyny).

Also, if you need proof that those terms weren't used lightly, I urge you to read another of my comments [1] where I posted videos of Trump proving he deserves being called that.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12932570

> It's quite similar to the post-Brexit discussions, how pro-Bexit people are stupid, etc.

Except I didn't call voters stupid, I simply summarized what Trump said.

> We can talk about [...] It would probably be fine [...] But he's the President-elect.

Of course we can talk about it. We have freedom of speech (wasn't this the original point?). You mean to tell me he can say whatever he wants but I can't call him out because he's the president-elect?

I get it that everyone whats to prevent things from going worse but we shouldn't close our eyes or accept whatever Trump happens to say or do out of fear. He shouldn't be allowed to do whatever he wants because "we must be united". He should be called out and, if necessary held accountable.

Trump those things was definitely not acceptable. But we can't undo the election or ignore the results of it simply because we don't find it acceptable. A very large share of American population were happy enough to vote for him. This, Brexit, raise to popularity of some specific parties in Europe should be a huge wake up call. And if we keep the attitude of 'racists voted him! He's a liar!' then it's just the beginning.

We should be very worried about the prospect of nationalist parties in europe. Unlike the US, nationalism in europe is deadly, very deadly. We should have a frank discussion about immigration and define our red lines in order to weaken this wave.

The thing is, these dangerous elements don't have any voice if there is not an issue in the first place.

If the borders were controlled and immigration was regulated, then you have no Nazis gaining support.

This is the side effect of these open borders policies in Germany.

The liberal strategy is fundamentally flawed. Fighting racism through driving it underground is not the right approach.

Its so sad.

Agree, but i hope some sense will be reinstated in europe. Merkel is the main culprit here and she is the one who will probably have to fix it.

> Sure, you and Donald Trump can say whatever you please. Nobody's restricting your freedom of speech.

As opposed to who?

As opposed to nobody. Everyone can say whatever they please. I was just giving examples: "you and Donald Trump".

Yes everyone can say what they please. But if you are in any kind of liberal circle, it is social suicide to support anything Trump says.

And this is what creates the echo chamber. Which prevents you from hearing the silent majority who decided this election.

My issue with Trump has never really been about his politics. I get that immigration and loss of manufacturing jobs due to globalization are serious concerns for a large swath of the American population. What I don't understand is how anyone could feel comfortable with him as commander in chief, or as the US's representative in the international community. Perhaps that's not what most people are concerned about, but foreign affairs is probably the area where the POTUS has the most impact. The election could have and should have been his in an absolute popular vote landslide, but that didn't happen because he kept blundering into so many unforced errors during his campaign - errors that anyone with a modicum of self restraint would have avoided.

> how anyone could feel comfortable with him as commander in chief

I understand what you are saying here. He struggles to speak eloquently, and does not have a statesman-like persona. He is no traditional president.

But look at the last 15 years of foreign policy from "statesmen". We had two wars, Obama missed seeing the rise of ISIS, Syria is a humanitarian nightmare, we had a huge financial crash, and terrorism is on the rise.

Trump opposed the war (was not a strong supporter before, and immediately after was certainly opposed to it).

No one likes him and he doesn't owe favours to anyone. The bankers, the lobbyists, the establishment. Everything that we would agree is wrong with the country.

And he did not run on a conservative platform of religion - which has nudged the entire Republican party to the left.

And he use to be a Democrat.

There will never be another candidate like him. But sadly no one can look past the ad-hominem character attacks.

Hi masondixon!

> But look at the last 15 years of foreign policy from "statesmen". We had two wars, Obama missed seeing the rise of ISIS, Syria is a humanitarian nightmare, we had a huge financial crash, and terrorism is on the rise.

So is your argument that "statesmen" have failed to avoid crisis, therefore someone who is not a "statesman" will be able to better avoid crisis?

Would it be fair then to say that because doctors have failed to cure patients, that we should stop having doctors treat the sick? Or that because people with drivers licenses have crashed cars, that we should allow people without them to drive cars?

> failed to avoid crisis

"failed to avoid" starting a war?

Hi tomp!

I was trying to summarize masondixon's stated points about the negative effect electing "statesmen" have had. masondixon listed:

- two wars

- Obama missed seeing the rise of ISIS

- Syria is a humanitarian nightmare

- we had a huge financial crash

- and terrorism is on the rise

I thought "crisis" could fairly characterize any one of these, but what I consider the substance of my response was what followed, when I asked masondixon to clarify his or her logical argument and extended it by analogy to other common points of public concern, like medicine and transportation safety.

I think you're correct to point out that "starting a war" and "avoiding crisis" are substantively different and accept (what I perceive to be) your criticism.

> So is your argument that "statesmen" have failed to avoid crisis, therefore someone who is not a "statesman" will be able to better avoid crisis?

Nope. Only the fact that a "statesman" doesn't imply good foreign policy.

Trump does imply more uncertainty though I would say.

We will see. Its worth trying out. Unless you think he will launch the nukes. Which is a big part of the liberal narrative.

> Its worth trying out.

I think this sums most of it up. People think things are getting worse and their lives very likely are, so why not try something different? It's the reason for most "unforeseen" results for ultrarightwing parties in Europe, I imagine. People want "someone who'll stir the pot".

I've never felt like that, but I can understand the sentiment, after hearing it so many times.

How willing you are to take a chance depends on how desperate you are.

Here's an alternative way to think about "desperation" (not saying this is necessarily the right way).

We have a lot of people in this country who are struggling financially. Their choice of geographic location, education, and skills (things they choose) aren't lining up with the 2016 economy (which they didn't choose). They voted Republican.

We also have a lot of people who are struggling socially and financially. They were born Mexican, Muslim, or homosexual (things they are) and are scared because other people want to deport them, jail them, or kick them out of the military. They voted Democrat.

Now, the Democrats offered to work with the Republicans to give them more choices and options. The Republicans said, "No way. We're staying put and rolling the dice with your civil rights."

Is it fair that a lot of people might feel like their freedom got sold out this week?

> We also have a lot of people who are struggling socially and financially. They were born Mexican, Muslim, or homosexual (things they are) and are scared because other people want to deport them, jail them, or kick them out of the military. They voted Democrat.

They only need to be scared if they are Mexican and here illegally.

Everyone else is being needlessly scared by the media and DNC.

What evidence helps you to feel so sure of that?

I'd like to know, because I'd like to feel as you do.

I can assure you that Trump and his supporters are not the racist, xenophobes that the media has told you.

Journey over to https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/. We have great people. You will not find xenophobia or racism there.

> People want "someone who'll stir the pot".

I think Europe is stirring the pot right now. Zero border control. Horrific terrorist attacks. Its genuinely scary.

Its more a question of how can it get worse?

Ok - thanks for clarifying.

I don't think that this assertion strengthens an argument that voting for Trump is better than voting for any other candidate.

I would argue that someone who does not have experience in public office should not be considered a viable candidate for president of the United States, much as I believe that someone who has not driven a car before should not be considered to be a driver in the Indianapolis 500 race. I don't think it's "worth trying out" someone who has never practiced a surgery to do open heart surgery on me.

I believe that a certain level of experience and track record in governance is a reasonable, basic criteria for the highest elected office in the United States. An example would be a governorship, term in congress, or a term a state legislature, something that provides a record of voting on issues that I care about, for instance - or displays some kind of governance style. Trump fails to meet this criteria.

It sounds like you and I agree that Trump implies more uncertainty, the difference in our perspectives is that you are comfortable with the uncertainty and I am not.

Is that a fair characterization of our positions based on this limited conversation?

> does not have experience in public office

Reagan didn't.

They can just surround themselves with people who know.

I think its good though. The longer you spend in politics, the more favours you owe people. Political capital. Don't you get excited at the prospect of a leader not beholden to any special interests at all?

> Is that a fair characterization of our positions based on this limited conversation?

In terms of risk/reward, I see higher risk and higher reward. You see higher risk and no change in reward.

I think it is a once in a lifetime opporuntity to have someone not beholden to special interests, and doesn't owe any favours.

Reagan did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan#Early_political_...

And then he became governor of California before becoming president.

Well i'll be...thanks!

> Don't you get excited at the prospect of a leader not beholden to any special interests at all?

On paper that does sound exciting, but it's not something that I want at any cost. In specific, I don't want it badly enough to elect Donald Trump as president.

What are the top 3 reasons why you dislike Trump so much? And for each of them - can you think of reasons why Trump supporters don't feel the same?

The analogy you present, Public office : no experience as a public official :: doctor :: no experience as a doctor

I don't find it very accurate.

It might be more accurate to say public executive : corporate executive :: public doctor : doctor with a private practice

There are plenty of real concerns that arise from the accurate version, enough that here is no need to impose an inaccurate analogy to spawn more concern than is already warranted. But the one you proposed conveniently overlooks the executive nature that is in common between Trump's previous roles and the role of a president. Much of the support for Trump has come from this notion that the polite "statesmen" of recent administrations have succeeded with manners and managing their public personas, but have failed as executives, and that the populace has suffered as a result of their executive failures. This was the driving rhetoric behind the Trump campaign. It was hatred, sure, but hatred for incompetence. And this is the criticism that the left failed to effectively address. It is the reason why they lost.

You can mask over mistakes by applying inaccurate analogies, but you won't win over your critics in doing so. In politics, that's what matters. This election cycle we found out just how much.

Well said.

Trump is able to say things that others cannot. He can speak freely.

In corporate politics, the biggest killer is people not being able to speak openly which creates a toxic back stabbing atmosphere.

You can see this in the Clinton Foundation from the leaked emails.

OK, I'll accept that my analogy isn't very good.

So your argument is that someone who is a good private executive will also be a good public executive?

Let's accept that premise as given.

Is Donald Trump a good private executive?

Hi prairiedogg, Well this thread is basically nitpicking each other. Let me tell you one thing. If you are a citizen of USA, you could run for president and be one as long as you are win a majority in a majority of states. Now, if you are interested in politics you, like me, would be following political decisions from a variety of sources and try to analyze it(see if its truth and try to understand if its fair to the citizens and such). You don't have to necessarily be a traditional politician/statesman(sad thing is most traditional politicians only cares about themselves and is more interested in coming across as having done something. Ideally they would do nothing and just get credit for doing all the good). My argument is you are as good as any statesman so long as you have a working brain. Be rational, have a willingness to find a solution for general problems faced by having conversation affected and actually do what is necessary to correct it. Make a level playing field for everyone so that everyone can actually live a good life instead of letting greed run amok. I do not like career politicians who are in politics just so in hopes of wielding power than to actually use it responsibly, but no, most "statesman" have no willings to study problems and find solutions, and pays a lobbyist to find a solution who has no incentives to come up with even a remotely correct solution. They do that because people are not paying much attention to what they do and they get away with it as injustices done to them would be mostly forgotten/drowned within a week in all the noise.

Hi rubberstamp!

I disagree that this thread is "just nitpicking each other" - I think it's been both educational and civil. For instance, when masondixon learned that Reagan had a political career before his presidency, masondixon thanked dbmikus for pointing it out. It's hard to find that level of candor on an internet discussion board - and masondixon seemed to want a genuine dialog that was free of the ad-hominem attacks that he or she had apparently been experiencing on other sites.

In regards to your "argument", I don't find it convincing:

> My argument is you are as good as any statesman so long as you have a working brain.

I disagree. My brain works reasonably well, but I don't consider myself fit to fill the office of the presidency - for a wide variety of reasons. I have no understanding of large portions of the world or even of the United States itself. I don't know how economics works on a macro scale. Just as I would never hire a person whose brain worked well, but had never written a line of code to fill the most important engineering role in my company, I would never say that just because my brain worked well, that I would be a good statesman or a good choice for president of the United States.

> It's hard to find that level of candor on an internet discussion board

:'( It honestly makes me emotional to hear this as I realise how rare a dialog like this really is.

Now I'm getting the feels masondixon - thanks for being so open to a discussion.

What I meant by 'as long as you have a working brain' is that "you are competent as long as you are willing to do rational analysis on your own and come to conclusions". You are perfectly fit for the office of president so long as you are willing to learn. You do not have any inherent limitation. Even most of the economists do not know what they are talking about. Most mainstream economic theories are not even proven to to be correct. Its just like anyone willing enough to learn to code can eventually write beautiful and accurate code so long as they remain enthusiastic learners.

As a leftist living outside of America. The thing is that some of us see these "statesmen" as the origin of the crisis.

As a leftist, I wouldn't want someone like Hillary's personal friend plunging my country into chaos and give power to a guy who would make Trump seem like Mother Theresa just because the people choose to elect an actual left wing candidate. I know this wasn't a relevant question to americans, not even to the "tolerant" and "progressive" Clinton supporters.

So yeah, personally, I could be wrong, but I'll take a bet with the one that at least doesn't seem like a statesman.

As a leftist living outside of America. The thing is that some of us see these "statesmen" as the origin of the crisis.

So yeah, personally, I could be wrong, but I'll take a bet that things could be different with the one that at least doesn't seem like a "statesman".

There are factors in play here beyond the background of the US president; Global politics, foreign leaders, policies in other countries, civilian actions, etc. To say that the US president being a "statesman" caused all of those things is a massive leap in logic.

https://xkcd.com/552/

> To say that the US president being a "statesman" caused all of those things is a massive leap in logic.

I am saying that "being a statesmen" doesn't always cause good foreign policy.

To an extent, I agree. And wouldn't it be great if people understood the President should have a much more limited role than they expect now? The Affordable Care Act being called "Obamacare" shows the way presidents establish all kinds of policy. He's put executive actions on immigration, power generation, and more.

If only pepole expected the Legislature to do that, then we wouldn't be in a position of worrying that Trump will undo almost every policy achievement of Obama's.

It will suck to go backwards in climate agreements.

Why not have a go here, I'd be interested to hear your rationale.

On a less important note, re the argument being at a level of "how could you vote for someone who said that". That may not be people refusing to engage with what you see as the important points, but them focusing on what they see as the most important points. That doesn't make it right but if it is the case you may do well to understand their point of view holds that someone with his behaviour and character can't be trusted with power, they may see everything else as somewhat irrelevant. If that is the case at least understanding it may help you frame the discussion with such people, and hopefully not dismiss their arguments as petty since they think they are the most important points.

Anyway, aside complete. Let's hear the rationale for being a Trump supporter, I would be genuinely interested to hear it even if I may ultimately disagree.

> they may see everything else as somewhat irrelevant

Yep. But this is what made everyone miss what was happening. It was an emotional response.

But in this case Clinton provided so many analogous examples, which were ignored, which is just plain bias. As bad as someone is you always have to ask: could the same be said as my candidate? And with Hillary is was a yes on everything.

It was always a question of "How could there be so many racists, sexists and xenophobes?". The answer was...there is not. It was the wrong question.

> Anyway, aside complete. Let's hear the rationale for being a Trump supporter, I would be genuinely interested to hear it even if I may ultimately disagree.

I've already posted it in a reply to this comment somewhere.

Mainly corruption - the ultimate poison of a democracy. Counter productive political correctness, money out of politics, bullying and irrational feminists, sjws, and blm supporters. If you don't agree with everything they say you are sexist, racist, misogynist.

> Yep. But this is what made everyone miss what was happening.

What is it that you think was happening?

Trump was going to win the election.

For what reason? Because 26% of voters felt bullied?

How about the 42% that stayed home and didn't vote?

So next time you will just pick a candidate who can get out the vote and win?

Ok let's try that in 4 years :) I'm happy if you do.

This righteousness will cause you to lose another election.

You don't want to admit that Trump won, only that Clinton lost.

I'm having trouble with this implied connection of corruption and feminists, 'sjws', etc.

Another issue: are you agreeing with _anything_ feminists are saying?

> are you agreeing with _anything_ feminists are saying?

Nope. Women are well respected in society and now have more opportunities than men. There are many successful women, and women don't need a message from men saying that the system is rigged against them and they will not make it if they try.

When there are as many women taking computer science at university, and seeking work in the computer science industry, and the numbers don't reflect that, then its something we need to look at.

How can you say that when there are numerous examples of assault and discrimination? From the very obvious assaults by frat boys to the fact that if a couple wants to have a child the woman is the one who is forced to take a career hit. I don't buy the retort that a woman should choose whether she wants to pursue a career in corporate law or to have a child, that consideration never enters the picture for a man.

Just because we're no longer telling Sally that she's bad at math because she's a girl doesn't mean we're done.

You may consider yourself an egalitarian but you can't be blind to the wider state of things. Have you considered that you may have a similar blindspot for other types of discrimination?

> numerous examples of assault and discrimination

Yes there is no denying it that it happens. But its not a "rape culture" and is not as common as people make it out to be.

A rape accusation will utterly destroy someones life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattress_Performance_(Carry_Th...

But yes there are the terrible instances that occur: https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/heres-the-powerful-let...

> to the fact that if a couple wants to have a child the woman is the one who is forced to take a career hit

This is non-partisan, and is not a social justice issue, its a public policy issue. Both Clinton and Trump have plans: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/comparing-donald-trump-hillar...

> I don't buy the retort that a woman should choose whether she wants to pursue a career in corporate law or to have a child, that consideration never enters the picture for a man.

How do you change it though? This is simply a discussion for the couple to have.

> You may consider yourself an egalitarian but you can't be blind to the wider state of things. Have you considered that you may have a similar blindspot for other types of discrimination?

I am aware of it yes. I read a lot - but it comes across as overly-sensitive and I believe sensitivities are learned not innate. And a lot of people just want to pick a fight because they are angry.

The third-wave in your face blogging feminism is the wrong approach. It feels more like a way to gain power and influence than to actually make things better. It just drives discrimination underground.

Your claim that a rape accusation will utterly ruin a person's life, right after Trump has become president-elect, is staggeringly imperceptive given that he has been accused of rape not once but thrice and had rape charges in pre-trial stages during his campaign!

"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."

Do you agree with this basic sentiment? (I don't mean the definition of feminism, but the part where women are people)

I don't think this is worthy of a response. Try again if you like.

I agree that Hillary is corrupt. Trump is also going to be corrupt, and is already corrupt. I'm not sure what you gained here.

> Trump is also going to be corrupt.

Why?

> Thankfully, freedom of speech is such an integral part of the US, that there is not one side trying to control what the other can say, and the other doing the same back.

Let's hope _other_ people's freedoms aren't being taken away thanks to your vote, though.

I also don't see why you would Trump will actually listen to you. Because he says so? You trust what he says?

I understand and will not debate that you feel like you haven't been heard by the American political system (I immediately take your word for it), but that just doesn't mean the alternative to staying on the same path isn't significantly worse. Or do you think your life couldn't be any worse? Worse is _also_ an alternative you may have voted for.

> Let's hope _other_ people's freedoms aren't being taken away thanks to your vote, though.

Such as?

> I also don't see why you would Trump will actually listen to you. Because he says so? You trust what he says?

I'm not talking about Trump listening. I'm talking about liberals listening to trump supporters trying to explain to them why they lost, and why they feel they are taking away freedom of speech.

> I understand and will not debate that you feel like you haven't been heard by the American political system (I immediately take your word for it), but that just doesn't mean the alternative to staying on the same path isn't significantly worse. Or do you think your life couldn't be any worse? Worse is _also_ an alternative you may have voted for.

The past 15 years have been a disaster. War, humanitarian crises, terrorism. I mean its always been a cruisy life for a white male software engineer though. But I just can't stand irrationality (as I perceive it), but more than anything the biggest risk is the attacks on freedom of speech through the liberal's bullying, public shaming, and ad-hominem attacks.

> Such as?

Well, I'm thinking mostly same sex marriage, maybe the freedom of religion (which seems to be OK for most, unless you're a muslim). Trump promises a conservative SCOTUS nomination, so everything that comes out of that as a side effect has a risk of people's rights being take away, mostly the progress made under the Obama administration

> I'm not talking about Trump listening. I'm talking about liberals listening to trump supporters trying to explain to them why they lost, and why they feel they are taking away freedom of speech.

OK screw people who want to take away your freedom of speech (but I admit that I don't know exactly what the problem you mention is, because I don't live in the US) but the point still stands as far as I'm concerned: I understand that you're pissed off, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to abuse the presidential elections, unless (of course you really agree with Trump's ideas, in which case I understand a vote for the man), obviously. I seriously doubt it'll lead to any improvement for this group of people, which would certainly make me wonder what the _next_ elections would look like.

>The past 15 years have been a disaster. War, humanitarian crises, terrorism.

I'm confused. There's a large group of white males that feel left behind, and that's because of war, humanitarian crises and terrorism? Not things like a very high unemployment rate (it's <5%, doesn't seem very high?) And if it's about war, humanitarian crises and terrorisme, you vote _Trump_, who has the tendency to throw oil on the fire, to fix that? How is this outcome REALLY going to make your life better? Do you honestly believe it will, and if so, how?

I mean, I hate irrationality as much as you do, but I'm still trying to understand the issue, and why exactly it's all Clinton's fault and how Trump is going to help? (I mean, a possibly rich businessman is not really part of the angry group so I don't see how it makes sense that Trump would represent a group he treats poorly)

> Same sex marriage

Trump: The Supreme Court has issued an opinion on this. Same-sex marriage is an issue that should have been decided by the states.

There are many LGBT supporters of Trump. Milo Yiannopolous is a hero amongst all Trump supporters, and he is gay. The world has moved on - Democrats just want something to be angry about.

> Freedom of religion

It is about terrorism and not about religion.

> He would "suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies."

One of his closest friends [Thomas J. Barrack Jr.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Barrack_Jr.) spoke at the RNC on the last day. He is Lebanese.

Lets throw in all the misogyny stuff too?

His daughter runs his company. His sister is a US District Judge.

You have been sold such a story by the media and the campaign here.

> Trump promises a conservative SCOTUS nomination

So would any Republican, and by replacing Scalia, it will be the same situation as existed during the Obama years.

---

> I'm confused. There's a large group of white males that feel left behind, and that's because of war, humanitarian crises and terrorism?

You see what happened here. You just injected this narrative of "left behind" as the primary reason for the election loss. I never mentioned anything about being "left behind". Again, you are listening to the media rationalise what happened, and they are the ones who brainwashed you in the first place. This narrative means the liberals are not wrong, its just a bunch of people feeling left behind and angry - just an emotional response to the liberals righteous path. This is very frustrating - but the Trump victory is so sweet, because now we don't have to care if they still can't understand it - it will keep them out of power for even longer.

> you vote _Trump_, who has the tendency to throw oil on the fire, to fix that?

Trump is anti-war. Clinton is pro-war. She advocates intervention. Confrontation with Russia. Trump says: "wouldn't it be great if we got along with Russia?".

Ask Wikileaks, they are extremely anti-war and they will tell you that Clinton is the danger here.

> a possibly rich businessman

Your words are dripping in vitriol. A "possibly" rich businessman. You might not realise it but everything you say is straight from the narrative that the media and DNC sold. Next is bringing up that he had 4 bankruptcies. Or that he is out of touch because he received a 1MM loan - which anyone could have turned into a billion dollars. I don't mean to offend here or anything.

> but I'm still trying to understand the issue

The issue is that you live in a liberal echo chamber. It is social suicide to openly support Trump. Even if you wanted to support some of his ideas, it would put you at risk of losing friends. I certainly didn't openly support Trump. The silent vote was real.

We are called racist, but no one is racist. We are called xenophobic, but all we are asking for is that the laws are upheld.

There is a progressive movement in this country that is taking shape on college campuses and will become mainstream some day, and they do not believe in the constitution or the laws of the land.

Where we see borders between countries that should be secured, they do not want the borders at all.

Where freedom of speech is the inalienable right, they are pushing a socialist agenda where everyone is equal no matter what the realistic implications of that are, and whether freedom of speech is trampled.

I believe they are wrong because they think with their hearts and don't for see the consequences of their actions.

I don't understand why you've started throwing in words like "vitriol". See, I'm not an American, nor do I live there. I don't really watch American news, and what I say about Trump is based on his own words.

If this were about terrorism and not religion, he wouldn't want to close the border for muslims but for terrorists, I would presume?

Replacing Scalia with a less conservative judge would be a win for democrats but it's fair game to have a different opinion. For me, however, it is most certainly a reason not to like a Trump presidency (though it has absolutely zero influence on me personally, obviously).

Trump did support the Iraq-war, unless he was lying when he replied "Yeah I guess so" when he was asked the question. Furthermore, he proposed a war crime to solve terrorisme when he proposed to kill terrorist family members (again; in a phone interview) and engages in such anti-war speech as "We'll bomb the hell out of ISIS", which, I would say, is pretty much waging war (not that I think we should just let ISIS slide...). So I don't agree with the sentiment that he's anti-war. Hopefully he's only not pro-war, like Bush was.

I said "possibly rich businessman" -- which I cannot for the LIFE of me understand why you'd call those words "dripping in vitriol" -- because I personally find it very suspicious that on the one hand he boasts about how succesful and how rich he is, and on the other hand he keeps the evidence firmly hidden. You're free to not find that shady, obviously.

I'm sorry if you lost friends over your political preference; I would certainly not have been one of them, that I promise you. But I do think you're misreading me: I'm doing my very best to stay rational (indirectly at your own request) and polite, so it's really unnecessary to feel attacked or anything. You're very much _free_ to support Trump, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

> If this were about terrorism and not religion, he wouldn't want to close the border for muslims but for terrorists, I would presume?

Something like 98% of suicide bombings were by muslims this year. And he said that it should be closed until we can vet them properly.

Its a bad idea. And he refined it to muslims from countries with lots of terrorism.

I mean...if you were part of stoning a women to death in Saudi Arabia...should we welcome you with open arms? If you come from a country where homosexuality is punishable by death...I really don't get why liberals want to let these people in, and then go and protest for them.

If we are tougher at the border, then the ones who are here will live happier lives because people will stop suspecting them of being terrorists. Try talking to a liberal about an idea like that...no chance.

> Trump did support the Iraq-war, unless he was lying when he replied "Yeah I guess so" when he was asked the question.

Yes on Howard Stern. Far from a glowing endorsement. And he is on record against it just after it started.

> I said "possibly rich businessman" -- which I cannot for the LIFE of me understand why you'd call those words "dripping in vitriol" -- because I personally find it very suspicious that on the one hand he boasts about how succesful and how rich he is, and on the other hand he keeps the evidence firmly hidden. You're free to not find that shady, obviously.

Ok maybe I read it differently in my head. Its one of those things that is quite irrelevant, but the media deciding to push this narrative to discredit him. And if you only read an article in the news about it, its what you would think. When the story of Trumps fortune is incredibly long and complex and he has without question done incredibly well for himself.

> I'm sorry if you lost friends over your political preference;

It would not be worth losing friends over it - so I just nod my head and try to nudge them to a rationale position. Political preference is not what any of my friendships are based on. But I think for a lot of people, its becoming an integral part. Bonds forming at protests, etc.

> Something like 98% of suicide bombings were by muslims this year.

There have been 0 suicide bombings in the US this year. The last suicide bombing in the US was in 2005 (11 years ago), the perpetrator was not a muslim and he was the only person killed. He also had no terroristic background.

> If we are tougher at the border, then the ones who are here will live happier lives because people will stop suspecting them of being terrorists.

You should have never started suspecting them of being terrorists. Or do you suspect all young white men of being school shooters? That would be equally wrong.

> Something like 98% of suicide bombings were by muslims this year.

I didn't say in the US. You added this refinement. On relevance, US foreign policy affects the world.

> You should have never started suspecting them of being terrorists.

I don't. But people will. You think a Clinton presidency suddenly makes everyone stop thinking things. Not everyone is like you and me.

Okay, this is why people don't want to listen and debate you: you're living in a weird cartoon universe where "President Trump" isn't a sick joke.

Just to take one minor example: Milo Yiannopolous is a racist bully. That's literally the only thing most people who have heard about him know about him. "Milo Yiannopolous? Isn't he that racist bully who picked on the actress from the 'Ghostbusters' movie?"

You calling that "bro" a hero is a racist thing to do: congratulations you're being racist on the Internet.

PLONK

Out of all the comments in this thread, you win the prize.

I said: Liberals just say everyone is a racist bully and then don't want to listen.

You say: Milo is a racist bully. I don't want to listen and debate you.

I hope you are influential and charistmatic, because your desseminated ignorance will help Trump win in 2020.

Thank you!

You're welcome. Now please go talk to someone else.

"We are called racist, but no one is racist. We are called xenophobic, but all we are asking for is that the laws are upheld."

I can't comment for the States as I live in Europe... but 99% of the big vocal trump supporters at this side of the ocean are racist and xenophobic like there is no tomorrow. In this country the only political trump supporters are the ones that has historic ties with the nazi's. That the most vocal European Trump supporters at political sides are in most case from extreme right political parties is also very telling.

So yeah it could be that you aren't racist or xenophobic but his message also really speaks to racist all over the world and that is fact.

I live in "Europe" as well, and don't see that "99%"

> In this country the only political trump supporters are the ones that has historic ties with the nazi's

That all racists support trump is not the same as all trump supporters are racists. Can you provide more evidence that "the only political trump supporters" are racist? It's not "telling" if it not true.

> that is fact

...

No one is saying all Trump supporters are racists. We're just saying that at least the supporters participating in the KKK Trump victory parade are :-)

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-upda...

> No one is saying all Trump supporters are racists

> 99% of the big vocal trump supporters at this side of the ocean are racist and xenophobic like there is no tomorrow. In this country the only political trump supporters are the ones that has historic ties with the nazi's

So, not all, just 99% of the vocal ones. Or, in some country, all the ones with historical ties to the Nazis...

Well there is probably a silent majority who are not actually racist, but would be called racist if they said anything.

And this will result in the right coming to power in France and Germany. And people will wonder why!

> We're just saying that at least the supporters participating in the KKK Trump victory parade are :-)

So the communist party would celebrate a Bernie win. Have you seen what communists have done last century?

No with big I meant politicians (the le pens, the wilders, the farages, ...) it's my fault I could have chosen my words better.

The only political parties that seem to be happy are the extreme right wing parties, that's was what I'm trying to say although very poor :-/

> that is fact

Compelling argument :P

> but 99% of the big vocal trump supporters at this side of the ocean are racist and xenophobic like there is no tomorrow.

Are you sure about this. I mean I don't know. But anyone you ask it always goes: "These people are scary and are Nazis".

When I listen to Nigel Farage - I'm like - it seems reasonable - but then someone is like "let me educate you...blah blah blah".

If someone is saying someone is a Nazi, then you back the fuck away from what ever you were just thinking.

There will always be some of the crazies like this. But on both sides. I mean there will be full communists on the left. But the white-supremist kind of crazies are definitely the worst.

I think these topics are too taboo that no one goes near them. And again I would say that this election was decided in the no-mans-land of race and religious relations that no moderate dare touch for fear of being labelled a racist for going anywhere near it.

> but more than anything the biggest risk is the attacks on freedom of speech through the liberal's bullying, public shaming, and ad-hominem attacks.

The latter strikes me as something that is an essential part of free speech. How would you address 'bullying, public shaming, and ad-hominem attacks' without also attacking free speech in the process?

That's an honest question, by the way.

We would never try to ban any use of language. Its more like advice.

We say: "Stop calling everything racist and sexist that is not racist or sexist because you are missing the real underlying issues. We want everyone to be happy just like you do, but we think your method is flawed."

Then we win the election because you missed the point.

This is why you will find such exuberant Trump supporters. There are many tears of joy being shed on the Trump side because of this.

Muslims often say: "Stop calling all of us terrorists and stop saying Islam encourages terrorism because you are missing the real underlying issues. We want everyone to be happy just like you do, but we think your understanding of terrorism is flawed."

Can you recognize the parallel between your statement and the one I've paraphrased above?

Can you?

But the punch line to my statement was:

"Then we win the election because you missed the point."

As in, ignore the message at your own peril, we don't have to care because we are content now.

But in the Muslim's case, the implications for us ignoring their message are more profiling, xenophobia, etc. Which is why I would argue they need to look internally to resolve the issues inside their communities.

Except that the Trump administration is who will be doing that additional profiling and exhibiting xenophobia.

That makes Trump's administration racist and makes the people who voted for Trump seem to appear racist. Though, as we've agreed, most of them aren't.

> Our 2011 survey of Muslim Americans found that roughly half of U.S. Muslims (48%) say their own religious leaders have not done enough to speak out against Islamic extremists.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/22/muslims-and-...

I don't think that's a good comparison. The vast majority of Muslims don't support terrorist organisations. That's why guilt by association, as pushed by people like Trump, is so harmful here.

We agree that the vast majority over Muslims are not terrorists.

But the guilt by association is my point.

In this election, people who voted for Trump considered his Muslim ban policy acceptable enough that they didn't make him change it before they elected him. And guilt by association can cause that support to be interpreted as racist.

> people who voted for Trump considered his Muslim ban policy acceptable enough that they didn't make him change it before they elected him. And guilt by association can cause that support to be interpreted as racist

Is Trumps Muslim ban policy racist?

Chris, yes his ban is racist. And, if you feel it isn't racist then let's just agree it is unconstitutional. The Constitution makes it very clear that people can't be singled out because of religion. So, at best, he's eroding the foundations of our democracy with the Muslim ban.

Edit: Islam isn't a race, so there's probably a better word than racist in this case. But the point remains.

And if you are gay, and half of all Muslim's believe homosexuality should be illegal, what then?

Thats a tough pill to swallow.

Gays for Trump is the most rationale position to take. Re: Milo Yiannopolous.

> that they didn't make him change it before they elected him

He changed it: http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-back-pedals-on-bann...

But its not as simple as "Banning all Muslims because they might be Terrorists". This is the headline the media liked to repeat again and again.

http://www.advocate.com/election/2016/8/15/donald-trump-want...

If you are gay, it is rationale to support a full ban on Muslims. Muslim countries have some terrible laws. I personally don't want anyone involved in an honour killing to set foot in the country. This is a real danger.

It is the height of irony that the liberals who protect Muslims so much, do not care what their views are on gays, or women. I don't get it and I would love someone to explain it to me.

Okay. Done with those edits. This is a tricky thing to try to express, so I hope I pulled it off.

> stop saying Islam encourages terrorism

Any time I've seen a Muslim actually talk about the issue, and explain how Islam doesn't encourage terrorism, they are evasive, or outright deceptive. Show me a legitimate attempt to explain the "real underlying issues" that is neither of these things (and not just representative of a fringe group e.g heavily westernized Muslims).

So you conclude that Islam encourages terrorism because, when you accuse someone of being a terrorist, they don't respond openly and enthusiastically? You've decided that a religion is guilty and want individuals to show proof of innocence?

The post I replied to made the comparison:

> Muslims often say: "Stop calling all of us terrorists and stop saying Islam encourages terrorism because you are missing the real underlying issues. We want everyone to be happy just like you do, but we think your understanding of terrorism is flawed."

So this is the context I am responding to, the hypothetical situation of a Muslim claiming the above.

> because, when you accuse someone of being a terrorist

No, I'm responding specifically to the "stop saying Islam encourages terrorism" part. When I say "Any time I've seen a Muslim actually talk about the issue, and explain how Islam doesn't encourage terrorism", I don't mean in the context of responding to an accusation of being a terrorist.

> You've decided that a religion is guilty and want individuals to show proof of innocence?

What have I decided about the religion? I implied that if it's true that Muslims are saying "you are missing the real underlying issues", then I've yet to see one attempt to explain.

Also, If I had decided that a religion is guilty, who else but individuals could demonstrate otherwise? Religion has no life of it's own, it exists only in the medium of the individuals who decide to carry it.

I didn't think that you personally were accusing people. I hope I didn't give that impression. I probably could have written "we" instead of "you."

Someone trying to explain how Islam doesn't encourage terrorism is on the defensive. The accusation has already been made. But the accusation doesn't make sense if the religion has no life of its own and exists only in the medium of individuals.

It's tough to defend against an accusation that doesn't make sense. If we can't point out what is bad, what is there to defend? The whole thing has a guilty-until-proven-innocent feeling to it. If the prosecutor can't make a sound case, there should be no need for a defense in the first place.

Anecdotally, the people I know who claim that Islam encourages terrorism don't know much about it. What they do know is shallow and cherry-picked, and any decent explanation immediately goes into the "it's different, so it's bad" bucket. It must be very difficult to demonstrate anything to these people.

> But the accusation doesn't make sense

I disagree. Having no "life" doesn't mean this.

First, inanimate objects can still be influential. Comics books, for instance, where one claimed to encourage violence, anti-social behaviour.

Second, The religion lives in those other individuals, much like any thought, meme, or ideology. Even the inanimate influences are often created by such individuals.

In the case of Islam, there are some fairly authoritative objects and people.

Are you suggesting there is no such thing as religion? Islam seems to be pretty serious about standardisation.

> The whole thing has a guilty-until-proven-innocent feeling to it

Not to me.

> Anecdotally..

In context, I can't really see these anecdotes as in good faith...

Do you not perceive the chanting of "crooked Hillary" and "lock that bitch up" to be examples of bullying and public shaming?

This is a public figure so there should be free reign.

"lock that bitch up" - Her gender is irrelevant to her corruption so it does not make sense for it to be here.

People are not chanting "lock that bitch up". They are chanting "lock her up".

"crooked Hillary" - She has been under active investigation for almost the entire campaign, and the Clintons have been their entire careers.

I don't see any problem with this. As long the same standard applies to both candidates.

> She has been under active investigation for almost the entire campaign

Noting that it has all been Republican-driven and hasn't yet found a single thing in decades. But it is definitely an excellent "poison the well" tactic.

FBI is part of the Republican party now is it?

> hasn't yet found a single thing

No illegal email servers then?

One example of "lock that bitch up" - http://mashable.com/2016/11/09/trump-victory-celebrations/#y...

Do you agree that (1) investigation is not the same as conviction, and (2) that repeating the phrase "crooked Hillary" ceaselessly is a marketing tactic designed to encourage a belief that Clinton is a criminal in order to undermine her legitimacy as a candidate?

> (1) investigation is not the same as conviction, and

No.

> (2) that repeating the phrase "crooked Hillary" ceaselessly is a marketing tactic

Yes.

> designed to encourage a belief that Clinton is a criminal

No, it brings to light the fact that she was under investigation and has many shady dealings in the past. It is to raise doubt. To be a criminal she must be convicted.

> in order to undermine her legitimacy as a candidate?

Partly. I think more so to raise doubts about what she would be like in power.

Would you be willing to articulate your argument for Trump here? I promise not to argue against you, and certainly not to slur you. Can't speak for anyone else, though.

We now HAVE Trump coming in as US president, so frankly I'd welcome a bit of hope that he might be good. I can't promise to agree with you, but I'm very willing to listen to arguments from those who hold opposing positions to mine.

> I promise not to argue against you, and certainly not to slur you.

Please argue! And thank you for not slurring :)

> Would you be willing to articulate your argument for Trump here?

I supported Obama. I always considered myself a liberal. I support gay marriage, I support gun control. I support universal health care. I support decent welfare and a safety net.

As a programmer, the formative moment for my Trump support came when a prolific open-source developer was forced to leave the community because he would not accept a trivial change to the documentation to change gendered pro-nouns to non-gendered pro-nouns. His reason was he didn't want to mess up the revision history with a trivial change like that. And he was from South America where nouns are all gendered anyway. But one of the big companies came out and said that "they would have fired him". http://www.dailydot.com/news/github-gendered-pronoun-debate/

This was non-sensical to me, and was bullying. But I soon realised that this overly sensitive behaviour had pervaded all walks of life and all aspects of society and I soon discovered the cliched political correctness run wild with third-wave feminist bloggers, social justice, Black Lives Matter protesting of clearly non-racially motivated attacks, and that was it.

Its ironic that my biggest reason for voting Trump is to stop the bullying from the left - who are protesting against...bullying (sexism, misogyny, racism).

One side is for freedom of speech, the other side is for controlling what you can say.

One side thinks controlling what you can say will be abused and unfairly target people, the other side thinks that freedom of speech is a means of control by the entitled.

There's a calm, complex, and nuanced debate to be had here to find a middle ground.

But unfortunately there is no Liberal ready to accept that this is the debate that needs to be had.

The alt-right, the new right, the Trump supporters - we are ready and waiting to have this debate...

I think you're right about the need for debate around how identity politics can be better expressed and that is a debate that seems to have been slightly suppressed on the left. I would say two things about why I don't think this is a good reason to support Trump:

1. The situation you describe is fundamentally about freedom of speech vs the right not be be offended. Trump is not an advocate of freedom of speech and doesn't believe in a free press. In my estimation this is much more dangerous than what you describe.

2. This doesn't even register on my scale of the pros and cons of Trump. The Presidency is not about who decides who gets to say what to whom, that is a matter for society at large. As has been described elsewhere in this thread the damage he will do (if he enacts even half of his platform) to immigrant and womens rights, America's standing in the world and free trade will outweigh a hundredfold any small gains you get from a backlash against political correctness.

> how identity politics can be better expressed

Do you not think that the elections showed that identity politics do NOT matter, instead national politics matter more?

I'm talking to OP's specific point around siding with Trump. I think the point is that no body on my side understands what matters in terms of motivating the electorate.

> As has been described elsewhere in this thread the damage he will do (if he enacts even half of his platform) to immigrant and womens rights, America's standing in the world and free trade will outweigh a hundredfold any small gains you get from a backlash against political correctness.

But in four years will you admit you're wrong if it doesn't turn out to be the case?

No. It will go on and on and on.

I feel I respond to all this fear mongering constantly:

> immigrant rights

Immigrants are better off with stronger borders. People don't have to suspect them of being illegal. Has that occurred to anyone on the left?

> womens rights?

Trump: I oppose the use of government funds to pay for abortion.

A supreme court judge may be an issue though, but it is unlikely to reverse policy.

> America's standing in the world

It is bad at the moment.

> free trade

Both candidates oppose TPP. Canada wants to talk about NAFTA. Free trade destroys local jobs.

I disagree that it's fear mongering and I don't think it's helpful to reasonable debate to call it that. I'm trying to understand what Trump wants to do by looking at what he has said.

On immigrant rights, maybe you're right, maybe all Trump wants to do is secure the borders but he certainly hasn't done much to discourage the nasty parts of his base form thinking otherwise.

On abortion rights you're taking a massive gamble with a hard won and important right. If you're comfortable doing that in the name of marginal free speak then that's for you to decide. I'm not.

The perception of Obama abroad is pretty good still. I live in the UK so I can tell you that he's perceived as one of the few grown ups on the world political stage.

They both may be opposing TPP but only Trump was talking about putting a large tariff on Chinese steel. Irrespective of the issues with global trade, trade wars are definitely bad for everyone involved.

So you were worried that the repercussions for saying whatever you like may be too high, and in exchange you were willing to potentially sacrifice women's rights, minorities rights, lgbt+ rights, the environment, business regulations, and whatever else conservative Trump appointments might do?

If only the third-wave feminist bloggers, social justice warriors, black lives matters activists, etc, had kept their mouths shut! It's good they were shown there are repercussions to saying whatever you like.

> you were willing to potentially sacrifice women's rights, minorities rights, lgbt+ rights, the environment, business regulations, and whatever else conservative Trump appointments might do?

You see how here you are saying that I am in favour of sacrificing womens, minorities, lgbt, etc. rights.

You see how it is basically saying: You are are a sexist, misogynist, racist?

Why don't you ask me what I think about those issues? Why don't you ask me my views on how they are best improved, and how the current approach is bad? Why don't we have a debate on the effects of introducing female quotas in workplaces. Why don't we have a debate on illegal immigration?

You know why? Because before we start talking about illegal immigration, you will be calling me a "xenophobe" for not using the correct terminology of "undocumented immigrant" or something like that. Its tiring. But I'm always up for it.

> If only the third-wave feminist bloggers, social justice warriors, black lives matters activists, etc, had kept their mouths shut! It's good they were shown there are repercussions to saying whatever you like.

Sadly its true. If you reach too far, and attack everyone who doesn't hold your viewpoint, there are repercussions.

If people don't agree with your approach, you make an argument about why it will result in a better society. You don't label people sexist and racist, and not worth speaking to. Its childish. And this election was a referendum on this.

You have to make logical arguments and engage in debate. Your ideas have to be able to be challenged.

We all want to help, but no one wants to listen.

> You see how it is basically saying: You are are a sexist, misogynist, racist?

Oh cry me a river. It's starting to look like your only debating tactic is "stop oppressing me".

You said it yourself that you voted for quoting "a racist, sexist, misogynist, xenophobe" because "One side is for freedom of speech, the other side is for controlling what you can say."

How is floodyberrys post not a fair representation of your views?

http://carlosmariscal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/logical...

There are errors in your argument, others agree as you have been down-voted. I will not respond.

It does seem like that alt-right has basically appropriated the anti-oppression-speech of feminists and other civil liberty advocates, to construct the appearance of a minority of oppressed white men. It's a very frustrating process to see, and it's even more frustrating to have to tip-toe around white males who victimize themselves, as if they are actual minorities with long histories of oppression, like females, black people, LGBT-folks, latinos, or Muslims in America.

They've also appropriated the 'there is no absolute' truth idea, that is used to try to make people understand differing perceptions. It was used to try get people to accept different view points, basically something that liberals and hippies came up with in the 60s. Now it's been appropriate to further the post-truth politics. If there is no truth, why not always lie.

The real frustrating part is that this conflict was totally unnecessary. Yes listening to feminists and black people can sometimes by hard to white males, it sometimes appears unfair and as if they want to 'reverse' the world. But overall, that's not the aim of these movements. And we (the white males) should really just give them the benefit of the doubt. We should listen. It hurts, but the conflict hurts them more.

Instead, some of the people in a traditional position of privilege have successfully turned around the conversation, into "no, you should listen to us".

And now this group of people, many of whom were traditionally democrats (even may have voted for Obama), now voted for Trump. They are the swing vote.

I cannot stand irrationality. I don't care who you are, what you look like, all we have is logic and reasoning.

I am not going to give someone the benefit of the doubt. If it doesn't make sense it doesn't make sense.

It is irrational because it caused them to lose control of the government.

This is the tough love approach and will help them become stronger in the future.

I don't think you realise how rare it is to find any kind of spokesperson for these groups who can make a good argument and debate someone else without resorting to calling someone a racist, sexist, etc. and deeming them not worthy of speaking to. They will grow up during the Trump years.

The liberals only offer short-term comfort, that will hurt them in the long run.

You do realize that people are falling over backwards to be polite to you. People are listening to you because out of intellectual curiosity, because they want to better understand the delusions of the alt-right.

You sound like some sort of misguided 'red pill' type person who lives in a strange parallel phantasy world where privilege doesn't exist and where racism and sexism are just words used in 'name-calling'. Your patronizing 'tough love' argument is straight out of something like Uncle Tom's Cabin. You're hiding your overt sexism behind 'rationality'. You're denouncing the anger of the less privileged but are smug and unforgiving in considering their problems. You severely lack empathy. You are truly part of the problem.

I care more about the less privileged than you do. You satisfy your own selfish desires thinking its empathy.

You couldn't even make it through this comment without calling me sexist, and stating that you shouldn't have to listen to me, without making any arguments.

Thank you for your ignorance, you are only hurting yourself.

The key to rational thought is not just logic and reasoning, because both rely on axioms and information. You need to make sure you're getting the correct data and proceeding from sound foundations. Thats where the skepticism comes in -- double and triple check your sources.

I'm going to be straight here -- what are your sources?

I mean try not to take this too defensively, but you pegged Reagan as a political outsider when arguing for trump. You think an investigation is the same as a conviction. You think that political correctness is the substantive issue difference between HRC and Trump. None of these things are true. In fact, they are so obviously not true that I have to wonder about your rationality.

> Why don't we have a debate on illegal immigration?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but while you personally may want to have a debate about illegal immigration, the person who you support to represent you (Trump) does not want to debate. He just wants to make a sweeping change without anyone in his path.

The people elect the president.

The people had the time to debate. We had the referendum. So now we live with it.

If you weren't busy calling everyone xenophobes maybe you would have got some support and won the senate and we could discuss it more.

Next time...

Wow, this escalated quickly. Where did I call everyone a xenophobe? I thought we were going to have some rational discourse and you quickly resorted to name calling and finger pointing. Thanks.

> Why don't you ask me what I think about those issues?

You didn't vote for your views, you voted for Trump. You had to believe that whatever would result from a Trump election was at least balanced by your desire to show the left the consequences of their free speech, yes?

> balanced by your desire to show the left the consequences of their free speech

There is no vengefulness here. We just wanted to be able to debate freely and openly without ad-hominem attacks all the time. Because we think that it is bad for the country.

If your freedom of speech is about shutting down the discussion by shaming people, then we will not reach a middle ground. So now we took complete power.

There are liberal policies I like, but now you get a mix of Republican policies I might not like.

The left polarised the country. The right is just trying to get by and talk about things.

Ok then, you valued your free speech more than the rights of those whose speech you think shouldn't be so free. There isn't anything more to say here.

> One side is for freedom of speech, the other side is for controlling what you can say.

There was just one candidate in this election that wants to control what you can say. And it wasn't Hillary.

“We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace, or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.”

> This was non-sensical to me, and was bullying.

I agree that it was bullying and that it shouldn't happen. But again, one side wants to fight against online bullying and the other side thrives on it. Just check the Trump's twitter account if you want to see what bullying looks like.

On one side you're saying you're all for free speech, on the other hand you're against the people exercising the right. Especially people you don't agree with (like Black Lives Matter). This all just sounds like a front to silence people who are pushing society in direction you don't want it to go (social justice things like fighting racism, sexism, homophobia, ...).

> There was just one candidate in this election that wants to control what you can say. And it wasn't Hillary.

I don't agree Trump here.

But I am not talking about the candidates.

I am talking about BLM, SJWs, and Feminists vs. everyone else.

With a racist, sexist, misogynist, xenophobe in the White House now, they must now show prove that his actions reflect their fears...or realise that they were misguided and tone it down.

This is the victory for Trump supporters. The man himself is but a vessel :p

> Just check the Trump's twitter account if you want to see what bullying looks like.

You can always block. Everyone defines bullying differently, and for this reason, every person can control what they see online.

Trump is by far the bigger victim. Look at all the relentless and repeated attacks on his appearance by liberals. I have never seen anyone chastise a fellow liberal over an attack on Trump's appearance.

When everyone can accuse everyone else of bullying...where do you draw the line?

> on the other hand you're against the people exercising the right.

My beef is with irrationality. I'm a natural altruist and intrinsically want to help people. But its frustrating when they don't listen and aren't willing to have a fair and reasoned debate.

So I am not against them exercising their right. I just want to help. The left may produce a good candidate in the future who I want to vote for, but if they are accusing everyone of being racist and sexist, if they are cheating in election debates, if the DNC remains corrupt, then they will continue to lose election like they have.

But as a Trump supporter, I don't have to fight for a rationale debate, the ball is not in their court as they have lost complete control of the government, and hopefully will come back to the debate floor when they realise they need to, in order to get there next guy (girl, et al.) elected.

> This all just sounds like a front to silence people who are pushing society in direction you don't want it to go (social justice things like fighting racism, sexism, homophobia, ...).

> racism, sexism, homophobia,

I don't want any of these things either :D

I just think their approach is wrong. But before I can say why...I am called a racist.

I recognise that you are trying to engage and explain your point of view. I respect that, even though I disagree with you.

You may have grievances (legitimate or otherwise) but you have to weigh up the pros and cons.

In 1920s Italy you might have been daily frustrated by the poor reliability of the railways but that didn't mean that voting for Mussolini would have been a good idea overall.

Also, not that I ascribe this to you, personally, but apparently 22% of Trump's supporters think he would start a Nuclear War. I'm struggling to understand what pros they think would outweigh that particular con.

> Italy you might have been daily frustrated by the poor reliability of the railways but that didn't mean that voting for Mussolini would have been a good idea overall.

Except you would know Mussolini had clear fascist positions. Trump was a ex-democrat and never far from the spotlight. He does not talk much about gay marriage and abortions. He doesnt have clear positions, although he does have directions like reversing illegal immigration, less interventionism. It seems none of them were judged bad enough to make trump supporters reverse their decision.

That's where the diagnosis of the democrats has gone wrong: they think it's possible that half the US is legally stupid, unable to think. They would have to back that up with statistics, iq tests etc.

Clinton was known as the more war hungry candidate. And there is proof in her track record. Trump wants to be friends with Russia.

Re: libel laws, europe has much much stricter libel laws than US, i don't think they are controlling what we say.

I'm not against stricter libel laws. I think speech should have limitations. And not just in cases of libel.

But I also don't think that liberals and "SJW" are controlling what we say.

I was just trying to point out the double standard in the post I was addressing.

well, you did say that he wants to control what you can say by opening up libel laws

There was just one candidate in this election that wants to control what you can say. And it wasn't Hillary.

Hillary wants to change the constitution to take away your 1st amendment right to make and distribute "Hillary: The Movie".

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-citize...

Keep in mind that Thiel sued Gawker to stop freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Trump doesn't care and will appoint Thiel to a major position in his administration anyway. Trump also repeatedly sued (or threatened to sue) newspapers who published factual stories about him as well as women who he sexually abused. This is a chilling precedent for free speech: if you are rich enough, then you can just sue to silence the opposition. I don't know how you can ignore the bullying by the right.

You think that this kind of thing only happens on the right?

You think that the right-wing parties are more wealthy than the left-wing parties?

You are trying to confirm the "trump is bad" case. But when it is shown that Clinton is the same, and liberals are the same...we have to argue on a case-by-base basis...which is not as easy as calling out conservatives that you don't like.

This is called bias.

I never said this only happens on the right (whether I think it occurs more on the right is a separate argument but not one that I made here). But the post I responded to was saying they voted for Trump (despite his repeated racism, sexism, and bullying) because the poster perceives the left as bullying. My point is simply that Trump and friends are serious bullies so this isn't a credible reason for choosing him over the left.

Here is the exact quote I responded to: "Its ironic that my biggest reason for voting Trump is to stop the bullying from the left"

I think masondixon's point was bullying by the left, not by Clinton. Trump is in fact a bully, and at least some of his friends seem to be too, but that doesn't actually address masondixon's point.

And in fact I think masondixon is right. The left, taken as a whole, is more bullying to most people than the right is. You can argue that, if you're LGBTQ, say, the right is more bullying. If you're just a middle class person with no personal stake in the culture wars, though, the left says that you have to agree with them (and even use their words) or you're a morally bad person who may face ostracism or even lose their job. So for the majority of people, the left is more bullying than the right.

And, as masondixon keeps pointing out, this is all in the context of an election, so how the majority feels is directly relevant.

I strongly disagree.

First of all, more than half the population is female (not to even look at race, sexual orientation, those who don't identify as male or female, etc.) so the majority of people by far are not white males who have "no personal stake in the culture wars." I see every day how people use male pronouns when talking about engineers, implying time and time again that women aren't engineers or that it would be very atypical for them to be. This pushes women out of STEM fields slowly but surely over time, both because they feel they don't belong and because their superiors actually assume males will be better subconsciously due to stereotypes and language norms. You can literally put a man's name on a woman's resume and it is more likely to be accepted.

Secondly, the truth is that in most of America you are still much more likely to be harassed for being female, non-heterosexual, non-caucasian, etc. than for using the wrong pronoun. Its not like every time someone says "he" without knowing the person's gender they get called out on it. I appreciate that the original poster felt strongly about one particular case where it put someone's job at risk, but race, gender, and sexual preference put millions of jobs at risk daily.

> how people use male pronouns when talking about engineers

In French, if there are 99 women and 1 man, you use the masculine plural.

Some languages are sexist, but it ain't a big deal.

> that it would be very atypical for them to be

It currently is atypical for them to be. When there are more, it won't be atypical.

> This pushes women out of STEM fields slowly but surely over time

But do you really think this is about pronouns? I think there are other issues like women making choices to go into other fields for other reasons. There are innate psychological differences between men and women (I'm not even sure I am allowed to say this let alone go near this topic in PC-world).

Open-source programming is a place where your gender doesn't matter at all. No one ever needs to know if you are female if you don't want them to.

Its a very objective field. If I do a code review - I don't ever need to know your gender, and I can judge the quality of your code.

I mean if you are a gun female coder, and someone says "women are scared away by pronouns and are being pushed out", what are you going to think of this?

You don't want a world of male programmers thinking that a women got a job because of some diversity hire.

If I were a male entering a female dominated industry, the thought of telling them to change the she's to they's makes me a little ill.

I'd like to see a survey on women complaining about this.

If there was a quality survey of women saying their top ranked issue preventing them from entering STEM was gendered pronouns, then this would absolutely be the biggest priority!

I think there are bigger issues and this is just a bike-shedding thing that is easy for SV white knights to make themselves feel good over.

> the truth is that in most of America you are still much more likely to be harassed for being female, non-heterosexual, non-caucasian, etc.

100% agree. But the nitpicking over pronouns enrages people, and distracts from the more serious cases of outright and blatant sexism. Everyone is crying wolf these days, and it is driving sexism underground.

I know it sucks real bad, but you have to bring people along with you to change their minds. This is why Trump won.

AnimalMuppet is right.

The key is that the left's bullying aims to shut down the discussion.

The right's does not have the same objectives. It is simply for comedic value to add some flavour to an argument, and get some attention. Most of the time it is the right wanting to engage and debate, and the left refusing.

It's my perception part of Thiel's motivation was to stop Gawker from outing closet homosexuals.

And the freedom of speech you so vigorously protect was to reveal details of a B-List celebrities sexual activities. Where is the moral courage on that?

Yes Freedom of Speech is paramount among our rights, but it's not inviolately absolute. The Gawker guys were scum but that's not why they lost their lawsuit. They lost their lawsuit because a jury felt their actions lacked news value and were a violation of privacy.

This is more about privacy.

Yes Thiel had a vendetta against Gawker so he funded an unrelated lawsuit against them and used his billions to shut them down. The vendetta stemmed from the fact that the gay founder of Gawker found it horrifying that Thiel would hide his homosexuality when he should be a role model for other homosexuals that you can be gay and still be a rich and powerful VC. Whether or not you agree with Denton on that point, secretly funding unrelated lawsuits against small publications and shutting them down doesn't feel too morally courageous either. There are ways to get a sex tape removed from the Internet that don't involve permanently silencing an entire team of journalists by outspending them in lawsuits.

> shutting them down doesn't feel too morally courageous either

Why? What did the world lose with Gawker?

An independent media organization that uncovered quite a few stories: https://www.wired.com/2016/06/10-stories-exactly-need-gawker...

I don't agree with Wired that all of those were super important but some of them clearly are. For example, Buzzfeed removing articles that were critical of their advertisers, the first exposes of the Silk Road and The Armory, evidence of Greg Hardy abusing his girlfriend, etc.

> Buzzfeed removing articles that were critical of their advertisers

Wasn't that Bethesda? Somewhat important I guess, (not "we should be able to freely out gays" important) but where was Gawker during GamerGate?

> the first exposes of the Silk Road and The Armory

That helped bring it down? Maybe.. But how much investigation did it require. And how harmful was silk road? I'll admit though, if this was the first expose, it was good.

> evidence of Greg Hardy abusing his girlfriend

I'm a little concerned here, the evidence came from "court documents" - so a real court was exchanged for the court of public opinion? Was actual illegality (in court) discovered?

I don't claim to be an expert on all these cases but I think I've made my point.

Regarding Bethesda, the linked Wired article indicates Gawker exposed both Bethesda and Buzzfeed for removing negative articles at different times.

I'm not necessarily anti-Silk Road but exposing it is still worthwhile investigative journalism

We lost a militant vigilante that wants to out private information about people including their sexual preference, apparently.

I never said I would have picked that battle. I simply said spending boatloads of money to shut down the entire publication in response was a strong arm bully tactic.

See my response to the parent comment if you want some actual examples instead of just cherry picking the one you don't like that they famously were shut down for.

And the US intervened to cut off julian assange's internet access. They gave hillary debate questions . It's a veritable jungle between media and politics over there.

i honestly cannot agree with you.

showing a sex tape and refusing to remove it (which is why hogan was suing gawker) from your site is not freedom of press. if it was, the leakage of celebrity pics (also known as 'the fappening') would be fine, no?

also, gawker outed thiel, which is bullshit. people should come out when they are ready, not when a yellow-paged blog decides.

also, let's change genders and say gawker not only leaked but refused to remove jennifer aniston's sex tape from their site. would you call that freedom of press?

Whether or not you think what Gawker did was right, it is a terrible precedent that a billionaire can shut down the entire publication by funding lawsuits for other people against the publisher. There are ways to get the tape removed without simply outspending the press to the point where they cannot feasibly fight your lawsuit.

It is a slippery slope. No one feels too bad about a sex tape getting taken down, but cases like this ensure that journalists will have to self-censor what they publish and err on the conservative side or else risk their entire publication being closed. This has a chilling effect on investigative journalism.

> it is a terrible precedent that a billionaire can

only people without money should be able to sue?

> There are ways to get the tape removed without simply outspending the press to the point where they cannot feasibly fight your lawsuit.

So this is Thiels fault, not Gawker? Gawker got away with a lot of shit before it was finally called on it.

> cases like this ensure that journalists will have to self-censor what they publish

Yes, is that difficult?

> This has a chilling effect on investigative journalism

I disagree, the degrees of freedom Gawker had were far too much, it didn't even try to be fair. What actual good did Gawker do?

> only people without money should be able to sue?

Is this what I said? No. But outspending a publication by an order of magnitude so that they either go bankrupt fighting you or lose the case is an example of how you can abuse the court system if you have way more money than your opponent. Its the same tactics large corporations use to sue small corporations in order to force them to settle regardless of whether they are right or wrong.

>> There are ways to get the tape removed without simply outspending the press to the point where they cannot feasibly fight your lawsuit.

> So this is Thiels fault, not Gawker? Gawker got away with a lot of shit before it was finally called on it.

Well yes, I see it as Thiel's fault because he wasn't a party to the case in any way but decided to give Hogan a blank check to send a huge team of lawyers after Gawker. Even if that was perhaps fair game, they didn't have to sue for so much that they literally shut down the entire organization.

>> cases like this ensure that journalists will have to self-censor what they publish

> Yes, is that difficult?

Yes it is. Its not black and white so there will necessarily be cases in the gray area (cases that could be very important and in the public interest) where publications will say "we can't publish this because we only have $10 million and someone with $10 billion could sue us and we will lose simply based on lawyer fees." For example, see the woman who was sexually harassed by Trump but backed down from talking about it publicly after Trump said he was sending an army of lawyers after her. How can someone who might make say $50,000 defend herself against a multi-billionaire? So we get censorship for no reason other than fear of billionaires suing.

> I disagree, the degrees of freedom Gawker had were far too much, it didn't even try to be fair. What actual good did Gawker do?

I already answered this above but here is one series of examples: https://www.wired.com/2016/06/10-stories-exactly-need-gawker...

> Its the same tactics large corporations use to sue small corporations in order to force them to settle regardless of whether they are right or wrong

The suggestion here is Theil bought the verdict?

> they didn't have to sue for so much

Doesn't the court decide if the amount is fair? And my point about "Gawker got away with a lot of shit" is that it is a net gain - Gawker did more harm then good.

> we will lose simply based on lawyer fees

Was that the case here? Gawker had merit, but could afford to even defend itself?

> there will necessarily be cases in the gray area

Then don't pusblish. Or just publish evidence. Neither apply here; It isn't important that Thiel is/isn't gay, it's important that Gawker shouldn't have published it. Where is the "gray area"? That Denton personally believes this personal information to be important? He should ask a lawyer. Or not use the publication as a vehicle for his personal values.

> How can someone who might make say $50,000 defend herself against a multi-billionaire?

This is a tangent, in in this case, there would be plenty wealthy liberals who hate Trump. Would it be unfair of them to do that?

You've hit the nail on the head. Liberalism has spent the last 10 years being the language and thought police. Where is the liberalism that brought us social security and desegregation? Why isn't liberalism talking about and fighting for basic income? None of that, just "use phrases and words as I want you to".

I am reminded of a common quip, which I am going to modify:

First they came for the word nigger, and I stopped using it because it was hurtful to black people. Then they came for the word faggot and I stopped using it because it was hurtful to gay people. Then they came for the word retarded and I stopped using it because it was hurtful to disabled people. Then they came after the words he and she, and I was called a bigot, racist, xenophobe for not bending my knee to "they".

Haha.

Its such a waste of energy. There are real problems and its such a diversion. I think its social justice bikeshedding. Its easy and they think they are making a difference.

There isn't any contact info, your account is green (meaning shiny new) so this comment isn't related to your thread.

However I just wanted to compliment you on your seemingly boundless reserves of patience while still taking the time to respond to questions.

I've personally taken a silent stance on everything until I know enough to have a good discussion about things. It has been refreshing to read a perspective, your's, which I don't ever remember seeing before the vote.

Thank you.

Honestly, there is no way I would ever publicly say any of the things I have commented here for fear of retribution. Going anywhere near topics like racism, sexism, and xenophobia is outright scary in today's political landscape - especially in the tech world. Imagine living in a world where what you say could lose you friends, your reputation, your job, etc. The attacks on Thiel epitomise this. The US feels as polarised as ever.

I believe the silent Trump vote was very, very real. There is a huge response to the progressive movement that flies under the radar. All you have to do is venture into https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/ and watch Milo's college tour on YouTube and you will get a good sense of the silent Trump vote.

We are now unable to discuss certain topics because the many of the words of language necessary to communicate on the topics are considered offensive. Communicating properly via talking is hard in the sense of transferring the exact same thought on my mind into your mind without loosing the context in which that thought is valid. It takes many to and fro clarification from both parties that are trying to communicate. If you add getting offended to anything, then the process of communication looses almost all of the original signal. I came across Milo's videos a week or two before election. It was in some article that reports it as being rude and offensive, so I went and watched the video. People are getting offended just because he support Trump. The reporter trying to interview him was trying their best to get him to admit what he says is wrong but could not. He stood his ground. Milo is also a human, he could get somethings wrong like all people, but he is genuinely trying to correct the problem of oversensitivity.

I was tracking both candidate's campaign and I couldn't even remotely say the results of polls published by media was correct. They all said Hillary leads. All most all traditional media channels and news papers all said Hillary leads. I live in a different country and even the media here were having occasional articles saying Hillary is leading. Each time I say in my mind "No its not true". I cannot blame the media in my country as they get the information from media in USA. Only in quora did I see someone almost accurately predict what the outcome of election will look like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG6rNcsVOaA

The woman being interviewed in CNN describes many of the problems. But the CNN anchor is not interested in getting into any details on any topic. Its like the media has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and jumps from one topic to another within seconds and does a poor job being a news channel.

Would I be way off in saying you're voting against the left more than you are voting for the right, then?

I think the right has changed. 10 years ago it was all anti-abortion, anti gay marriage, super religious, anti-healthcare.

I always use to say "I could never vote for the Republicans because of this".

So I support most the left-wing policies. But mostly it is a vote against the progressive movement, and the Bernie faction. And corruption is the ultimate destructive force in politics and the Clinton's oozed it.

I think that the more time that passes since the hey days of communism, people forget how terrible it was, and we start heading back towards it.

What do you think characterizes the Bernie faction?

Socialism. Rich should pay for everything. Entrepreneurs are homogenous and replaceable. Someone is always going to create Apple Computer. Etc.

Money out of politics is good - but the Dems will never let it happen.

I think the Dems are a long, long way away from anything which vaguely passes for communisim. They're almost as capitalist as the Republicans, but - I think - more protections for equality.

The problem is that Capitalism doesn't care about people. It is a system, and the worth of commodities and even people is determined by the market. People lose their jobs because either automation can replace them, or the job can be done cheaper elsewhere. Either way, that is capitalism, and if you support capitalism then that that is the inevitable result. You can try and restrict the impact by reducing global trade, but even if you built a wall around the USA and didn't import anything, as technology gets more and more efficient there will still be fewer and fewer jobs in the USA.

What's your proposal for people who can't get jobs because there aren't enough of them?

> I think the Dems are a long, long way away from anything which vaguely passes for communisim.

Yes Dems are not communism at all. I am talking about Progressives and Bernie ppl. The next primaries will see if this faction takes over.

> What's your proposal for people who can't get jobs because there aren't enough of them?

I'm not sure, but I like the idea of basic income.

The side effects have to be addressed though.

You think that basic income is a good idea but you think that Bernie Sanders is communism? What exactly don't you like about Sanders? I'm genuinely curious because my impression was that Sanders would have done better against Trump, at least in the Midwest where Trump did very strongly.

I like being entrepreneurial and making things more efficient. This takes away jobs. I don't want to stop making things more efficient through automation. I don't want to hold back progress. But these people need to live. So basic income.

Sanders has too much animosity towards the wealthy.

The key is to reward people for doing good valuable work and route more of society's resources to them for productive use. The consequence of working badly or not at all can be a very modest life, it doesn't have to be starvation or homelessness.

Communism seems to assume everyone will want to work, and send out the murderous thugs when it doesn't go to plan.

I'm not an expert on communism so I can't speak to your assertion about thugs. Please could you provide a citation?

I'm interested in your idea of routing resources to people to be used productively. Can you give some examples?

Sorry, but this notion that Trump supporters are being unfairly criticized is a complete straw man. Vigorous criticism is what we should all expect for someone who fans the flames of mistrust and xenophobia in order to accomplish their goals. There are certain lines you just don't cross. You don't imply that 20-25% of the world population (Muslims) is unfit to enter the country. You don't peddle conspiracy theories. You don't mock disabled people. You don't brag that you can do whatever you want to women just because you're famous. You don't do even one of these things, but he did all of them and more. Trump supporters need to own up to all of this instead of whining about being called out for it.

You also shouldn't expect us to take you at all seriously if you comment with a throwaway account named after the Mason-Dixon line which, at one point in history, separated territories where slavery was either legal or not legal. Don't evoke civil war symbolism and slavery and simultaneously expect to have a calm, reasoned debate.

>Thankfully, freedom of speech is such an integral part of the US, that there is not one side trying to control what the other can say, and the other doing the same back.

That is exactly what the recent HN front page articles proposing that Facebook 'stop misinformation' are aiming to accomplish.

Wise decision to create a new account for this comment!

I have the same problem trying to explain to my european friends why trump won and why it is not all crazy.

;)

I'm European, and British. I voted Brexit. I understand.

If the rust/bible belters feel the same as Northern England, I fully understand.

I'm curious:

> I have never been able to properly explain the rationale to a liberal

Have you ever had explained the liberal rationale to you and did you understand it?

I'm wondering if it works one way, or everyone struggles to understand the other. Thanks.

> Have you ever had explained the liberal rationale to you and did you understand it?

My Medium daily update newsletter is full of feminist, progressive, black lives matter articles. I read all of them. I read all the comments on Reddit, and on HN.

Everything is labelled as racism and misogynistic and full of vitriol. There is no priority on sound and valid argument. Its all about feelings.

Maybe I live in a filter bubble, but I would love to find a good example of a liberal having a rationale debate with a Trump supporter about political correctness, black lives matter, etc, that doesn't revolve around something being inherently "racist" or simply ad-hominem attacks. I cannot find anything like this.

I'm probably more on the "SJW" side of things than a lot of people, what questions do you have?

Do you think the response by Joyent was appropriate: http://www.dailydot.com/news/github-gendered-pronoun-debate/

Do you think this was appropriate and fair to the accused: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattress_Performance_(Carry_Th...

Do you think the BLM riots were justified over this: http://nyti.ms/2ctkwYZ

Do you think police shoot more black people than white people?

Do you think SJWs consider the potential side effects of their approach?

E.g:

- Establishing diversity quotas causing resentment amongst others that "they were only hired because of diversity" even if they made it there on their own without a quota or special treatment?

- Making women, and minorities feel like the system is always against them and they will not succeed so they should not try.

Thanks for replying! I was actually hoping that you would ask some more general questions, because I would consider these examples edge-cases, and for me to talk in any useful way about them I would have to do a lot of research (the first link alone has a LOT of background). But briefly: I thought Joyent was being melodramatic, even if I consider Noordhuis' reactions to be a bit petty. Its always convenient to consider a change trivial when it only has benificial effects for others.

I don't know if black people are shot more than white people, the thing that most people care about is that the police seems to be a lot more agressive when it comes to black people, even when unwaranted.

Lots of "SJWs" think about side effects, the reason that the conversations that they are having on twitter and reddit aren't more nuanced/allowing for "but"s etc. is that you are fighting an uphill battle with that kind of stuff on the internet. People like to pretend that the world has been taken over by PC-culture but the large majority on the internet still firmly hates Sjw's. This means that they don't really consider the internet a place for "policy"-discussion, but at best as a tool to spread the message.

(Ps, none of this may have been worded very clearly or convincingly, English isn't my first language)

Thanks. Interesting to read.

Its so rare to engage in a level discussion with a SJW. My experience is mostly reading stuff on Medium. Then there are the protests at college campuses on YouTube. But its easy to get trapped in a filter bubble on YouTube. You click on one video and then you are endlessly served recommendations.

It comes across as very naive a lot of the time, and its hard to find a video from a knowledgeable spokesperson. What I am always looking for is something where someone acknowledges the arguments against what they are doing and logically refutes them - but I don't think I have ever read anything like that. I think its because people believe they are morally justified and therefore criticism is invalid. It is not about utilitarianism, but that there is a duty to act regardless of the consequences or side effects. I think it is an interesting phenomenon and a very dangerous ideology. Safe spaces probably the most dangerous - where it becomes okay to never have your ideas challenged. I only wish this Trump backlash can bring them back to the table of reason, and allow themselves to be challenged.

> the reason that the conversations that they are having on twitter and reddit aren't more nuanced/allowing for "but"s etc. is that you are fighting an uphill battle with that kind of stuff on the internet.

Yes I can see how it would be.

Is it fair to acknowledge that the feelings expressed in the articles you reference are valid feelings and feel true to the people who share them?

Edit: Is it fair to acknowledge that the people of the United States have a history of discriminating against minorities?

What is a country that does not have a history of discriminating against minorities?

> Is it fair to acknowledge that the feelings expressed in the articles you reference are valid feelings and feel true to the people who share them?

Yep!

These sensitivities are learned though. And being overly sensitive is bad for social cohesion.

A certain discipline needs to be enforced to allow society function.

The right is about tough love. The left is about coddling.

This is entirely 100% debatable though. This is the debate that should be happening IMHO. What are the side-effects if no one has to feel a bad feeling or ever be offended.

> Edit: Is it fair to acknowledge that the people of the United States have a history of discriminating against minorities?

Absolutely. But not for a long time.

We had a black president. A female can extremely close to becoming the president. Etc. Etc.

To argue that the system is against you because of your race is a hard argument to swallow now.

The basic issue is people now a days are not using language properly. Its hard to accurately convey what you are actually trying to convey. When you are writing on some topic, its easy to read what you have just wrote and correct it if it came out wrong. But when you speak, unless you are speaking to a calm and patient crowd, if anything comes out wrong then that will be used against you to smear you. That is what makes politics dirty and out of reach for most people. People often wanting the same things are just fighting each other believing that everyone else is wrong. One should learn to use language properly. Another important point is do not resort to personal attacks at all. Personal attacks makes sure the other person won't listen. Everyone needs to be civil and consider what the other side is saying and the reason why they are saying it. Media needs to report actual facts of things, which is very very rare now a days. Unless these kind of basic issues go away, democracy is a lost case.

Well said.

Obama is against political correctness.

> It’s not just sometimes folks who are mad that colleges are too liberal that have a problem. Sometimes there are folks on college campuses who are liberal, and maybe even agree with me on a bunch of issues, who sometimes aren’t listening to the other side, and that’s a problem too. I’ve heard some college campuses where they don’t want to have a guest speaker who is too conservative or they don’t want to read a book if it has language that is offensive to African-Americans or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women. I gotta tell you, I don’t agree with that either. I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view. I think you should be able to — anybody who comes to speak to you and you disagree with, you should have an argument with ‘em. But you shouldn’t silence them by saying, "You can’t come because I'm too sensitive to hear what you have to say." That’s not the way we learn either.

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9326965/obama-political-correct...

This means that somewhere you have a white male SJW college student calling out a black president for betraying their cause.

The left has moved pretty-far-left if you ask me.

So, I'll try to respond as someone who voted in support of Johnson, and can get the appeal of Trump as well as the Clinton, as well as visceral hatred of either.

I get that huge swaths of the electorate feel like this system hasn't been working, and that' it's all manipulated by career political insiders who have their own brand of benevolent authoritarianism. I get the distrust of a liberal culture that overvalues its own contributions to society, and has a false sense of how correct they are and why they are where they are, and overlooks their own serious problems and prejudices. I understand how the media plays into this, and believe that a lot of what Trump has said has been taken too seriously or distorted, that he was projecting a character rather than an argument, and in doing so, demonstrated empathy with a huge group of the population. I get that population has been so screwed by the current system they just want something different, whether that be Sanders or Trump.

However, I strongly believe that there's a false equivalence in these discussions, and that calls for "reasoned debate" on the American right are often intentionally or unintentionally meant as a negotiating tactic, to cover up arrogant intransigence on their part. They don't get what they want, so rather than contributing something constructive, they accuse the left of "not having a reasoned discussion" or not "compromising." When the GOP and Trump talk about the left "not compromising," they're really meaning "we're not getting what we want."

Relatedly, do you really believe that the things that Trump has said about minorities, women, and so forth are acceptable ways of leading the United States, or treating those who disagreed with you? What would the GOP do if the liberal candidate said the same things about Trump?

Which party shut down congress repeatedly rather than have a reasoned discussion? Which party has been obstructing and crippling the supreme court because they didn't get their way?

The reality is that the GOP lost this election in terms of votes, and yet are still entering the white house because of a broken electoral voting system. Like it or not, Clinton won more votes than Trump. So Trump and the GOP are going to undo everything the majority voted for to get their selfish agenda, because they don't care about the majority of the electorate that voted for someone else. Who is being unreasonable in this situation? It's not the liberal party.

I have plenty of reasons to be angry with both parties, but Trump is dangerous in a way that Clinton was not. Sure, I could find some bright sides to his ticket, but it's overshadowed by a lot to be terrified by.

I'll add my two cents.

I could not in good conscience vote for either Trump or Hillary. Both were appalling candidates.

Why was Clinton appalling? 25 years of scandals. DNC biasing the primary in her direction. The email server. (I've worked in internet security; that was a horrible decision. It was also completely against policy, which gave the impression that she thought rules were for other people. And it at least looked like she did it to avoid any emails coming home to haunt her presidential run.) The Clinton Foundation at least gave the appearance of "pay for play".

Also, she was very much the establishment candidate. In an election where many people were extremely dis-satisfied with the status quo, that was fatal.

My impression is that some people genuinely bought Trump's message - but not enough of them to win the election. There were a large number of "not Hillary" voters who put Trump over the top. That doesn't make them "pro Trump", it makes them "anti Hillary".

> a broken electoral voting system

Would you really be saying this if Clinton lost the popular vote?

> calls for "reasoned debate" on the American right

We are not talking about discussion at a political level. This isn't about the GOP. The GOP hates Trump. Its at an interpersonal level. Person to person. Comment to comment.

Look at this thread as a case in point. You will see a perfect sample of the kind of discourse you get when you start talking with liberals. Plenty of accusations of sexism, racism, xenophobia. And I'm just a username on a forum. I could be a gay, female, muslim, illegal immigrant and I would still have been called these things. And also would be called out for betraying the liberal cause. :(

As a Trump supporter, you should first and foremost brush up on your knowledge what the terms "liberal" and "liberalism" actually mean.

So how can you explain the rationale?

Its in this thread somewhere.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com