Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChrisNorstrom | Hacker News Reader

The worst part about all this, is that the same party that claims to be about Tolerance is so intolerant that you can't even explain to them why this (Trump & Brexit) happened.

No I'm not saying a word and I advise the HN members who "know what I'm talking about" to STAY quiet as well. I know it's tempting but I've tried it before on HN. I tried explaining, I'd type up these long posts with links to video evidence, scientific papers, psychology today articles and still the you-know-what-leaning downvote brigade got me. I don't mind downvotes but when you see how these people attack and censor and get you fired from work it's just not worth it. I deleted all my comments before the deletion time limit hit and vowed to just stop.

I know some of you are curious but honestly, this is your punishment. Your punishment is not Trump and Brexit, your punishment is never truely knowing why Trump and Brexit happened.

This is your hell. You made it.

View on HN

Your comment implies it's obvious why they happened. Is it? I've read many nuanced, data driven, and mutually exclusive articles about why Trump won.

What is so obvious that all this complexity is unnecessary? And if it doesn't seem obvious to so many people, why should I (or anyone else) update their beliefs and say ah yes of course; all those careful investigations were just missing the point?

I hope this doesn't come across as derogatory - it's not meant that way. I really am curious about the epistemology; when many people say complicated and some say obvious, what evidence should cause me to believe the latter?

Charts don't measure what they don't ask. Graphs and numbers don't measure emotions. The "data" on why Trump / Brexit won is hilarious. Correlation does not equal causation. By the way I just got downvoted again, and someone went through my username linked threads and downvoted them too. Welcome to the new HN, it wasn't like this 5 years ago. You can't talk anymore. You have to use code-words.

Specifically?

I could take a stab.

Polls were specifically rigged to show a Democrat victory.

I suspect that's what he's referring to.

There are only a few owners of American media, and they have their agenda. This election cycle was a bit odd in that the normal right-leaning media companies were aligned with the left-leaning ones, so you got bad-mouthing of Trump all-around.

Once the right-leaning media realised they were about to put Hillary into the White House, they did an about face and started doing their normal biased reporting.

Meanwhile, the left-leaning media kept their bias strong from the start.

This seems to be playing out similarly in Great Britain, with their media taking sides, and at the moment, the left-leaning market forces are stronger. I suspect this is due to the huge benefits globalism brings to the media owners and their financial friends.

The problem is, the population at large doesn't benefit from globalism as directly and obviously as the media owners, so they're not playing along with the game anymore.

Just a guess, mind you. GP might be on about something else.

> This seems to be playing out similarly in Great Britain, with their media taking sides, and at the moment, the left-leaning market forces are stronger. I suspect this is due to the huge benefits globalism brings to the media owners and their financial friends.

I don't think anybody even casually familiar with British media would argue that "left-leaning market forces are stronger" or that the British media is anything other than rabidly hostile (both on the Brexit right and anti-"neoliberalism" left) to globalism.

Downvote me all you like, but the circulation of individual right-wing nationals like the Sun and Mail exceeds the circulation of all the left leaning newspapers (basically only the Guardian, the Mirror and the i since the Independent folded its offline operation due to lack of sales...) put together. It's hard to argue that "left leaning market forces are stronger" when the right leaning press has more outlets and the individually dominant news source in every category.

It's also pretty hard to argue that the left-wing, Remain-backing Guardian's doesn't publish a lot more commentary criticising the shortcomings of globalisation and berating international capital than pieces extolling its virtues.

Why do you think it happened? I'm asking in good faith because I am in a liberal bubble, and I feel strongly that more empathy and willingness to listen is needed from my cohort.

Hypocrisy. At least here in India, the hypocrisy of what is labeled the "liberal left" is nauseating.

- I clamor for women's rights but when a certain religion is guilty of trampling over women's rights, I go quiet

- I clamor for equality before law but when a certain religion asks for different laws for different religions, I go quiet

People don't take too lightly to their sense of fairness being trampled over, and this feeling of unfairness seems to be a cause for growing discontent.

I think that's because people don't want to get killed. That 'certain religion' is known for mindlessly killing people. No, I'm not talking about Buddhism.

Sounds like a pretty good strategy for achieving the goal made utterly clear by the source writings. I trust the latter expression is sufficiently euphemistic.

It really depends on the state / region. He promised a lot of things. If I had to pick one of the biggest ones, it would be:

Automation, globalization, and anti-unionization have been pushing down wages for 30+ years. Government policies by both parties seem to do nothing but speed up the process, particularly in globalization. The only thing the Dems had to offer was social safety net, but most people would rather have better paying jobs. The Republicans only offered rhetoric and an extra helping of anti-unionization.

Also, I don't think a vote for Trump is for the GOP or their policies. The GOP was the platform Trump used to get elected (as he slashed and burned their policies). I think the vote was anti-establishment (anti-GOP and anti-Dem). It could be a sign of just how economically desperate many people in the red areas are.

Also, it's very difficult / rare for a party to get a third term in recent history.

> The only thing the Dems had to offer was social safety net, but most people would rather have better paying jobs.

I'm not from one of the "Brexit States", but my family is spread across much of the rural Midwest and that sentence expresses their feelings quite succinctly. One family member, during a conversation about tech, volunteered that he thinks self-driving trucks will destroy much of what's left of the patchwork of small towns remaining near where he lives. No more relatively predictable income from truckers at diners and gas stations when the battery powered robots never have to stop for food or gas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com