Comment by scottLobster | Hacker News Reader

Comment by scottLobster | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm not sure that more information will help those people. I saw an interview with a Haitian-American restaurant chain owner who voted for Trump and was dismayed that he might have to close a couple of locations due the removal of Temporary Protective Status for Haiti causing him to lose employees. He said that Trump sold him on the idea that "he was a businessman, and would act like a businessman", and that he now regrets his vote.

Like, the "eating the cats and dogs" line, specifically targeted at Haitians, wasn't enough for you to think that maybe this guy didn't have your best interest at heart? Also Trump's history as a "businessman" is anything but wildly successful or something to envy.

These people will see whatever they want to see until they get hit, so unless you're in a position to provide the hit, or somehow impart discernment that most elementary school kids have, they can only be contained and we should be happy if they pay their taxes and don't vote.

> Also Trump's history as a "businessman" is anything but wildly successful or something to envy.

Maybe we should stop treating these contradictions with Polyanna level of naivety. What is more likely: a.) these people did not seen the obvious contradictions or b.) these people are giving out publicly palatable sympathetic responses. It is all economic vote, except that conservatives were never good for small businesses.

What if these people are not as dumb as they pretend to be. What if they are actually attracted to the same thing that makes other men attracted to Trump - the male supremacy ideology and the racism against "not them exactly". The fun ugly part of it. The cruelty against homosexuals and trans. Saying that openly will still makes you look bad, so we get the "we had no idea, this was just economic vote" kind of nonsense.

One can be both malicious and naive. Regardless, more information isn't going to solve the issue. The information was presented; they ignored it for whatever reason.

Getting them to stop ignoring information they don't like is the problem.

> What if these people ... What if

What if we got proper stats instead of adding slices to the pie chart not knowing how big they are.

"What if they were all perverts". Well, that would have been remarkable in the distribution of chances.

> What if we got proper stats

We have plenty of those, we are just ignoring them.

> "What if they were all perverts". Well, that would have been remarkable in the distribution of chances.

There would be absolutely nothing remarkable about distribution of chances here. It is the most plausible and explanation. It is also completely consistent with all the data we have - including the fact that record of abuse never harms republican politicians. Instead, it raises their credit. It is also consistent with philosophies the leadership openly pushes for.

And how can your point be credible with the sweeping generalization and ignoring for the sake of the monothesis e.g. the systemic failures that brought us to this point.

I'd start again using quantifiers and a more complexive analysis.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com