oldmanjay

Most of the very wealthy people I've met work very hard indeed, yet they are not considered to be "working folk". Why be antagonistic toward powerful people in the core jargon of the party plank? Would honesty of language, or perhaps even inclusiveness, work better than emotional resonance and tribalism?

No, you should be tolerant of people. You should also endeavor to note the distinction between saying something and doing something, because it's not even subtle and insisting it doesn't exist, for example by labeling a joke "sexual assault," does not convince reasonable people that you are on the level.

Do you know because you know Thiel or do you know because you're a Jedi and you searched your feelings?

It's a huge complaint when it confronts people who didn't learn how the system works in civics class, I guess, but it's been the way that presidential voting has worked since before we were all born, so the outcry is sort of annoying at best.

Also, as the only groups legally able to propose a change to this system are right now benefiting from it, I wouldn't hold my breath.

OP et al assert a particular motivation of a general population, which is hardly not generalizing.

Not that I'm expecting a response, but I'm curious; were you going to assert that it is impossible to be bigoted about a white male?

Hmm. This isn't twitter, and I quoted my entire post. What, exactly, are you on about?

Edit: ah wait I see, you think I'm trying to karma bump my sentiment, but to what end? It's parented under the flagged version of itself and I hardly care if I accumulate more internet points. I'm just trying to figure out why you think flogging your morals at me is worthwhile.

Ahh, now if I were a man who liked reading into things people say, I'd go with inferring that you believe I am a trump supporter. You are incorrect if that is the case.

Now, on to the point. I'm dead curious. Here are my words:

> Literally everything in my life is more important to me than any aspect of your mother

Where is the question implied in there? I endeavor to speak precisely, and I have heard it posited that it is incumbent upon the speaker to eliminate misunderstandings in the listener, so let's put it to the test. Demonstrate how that virtue signalling question you inferred from my words comes from my words and not solely your head.

My point is that you inferred a question that was not asked implicitly or otherwise, not that I needed a definition of implicit. I did not talk past you. I simply deny your arrogant assumption upon which you base your understanding of me.

Your terror is no more my responsibility than your putative mother's health. I don't consider you an enemy. In fact, I don't really consider you, because as a human being I have limited capacity for things like love and I save that capacity for the many people I actually know and deal with in my life.

Okay, let's stipulate that the notion of "white privilege" is real. The shattered people who voted for Trump, who spend their lives being called "white trash" by "coastal elites," are clamoring for a share of that privilege. How do you address them?

That's pretty much how I've lived the past year. Even close friends would descend into personal attacks they knew were completely incorrect in their zeal to deny that trump was a force they didn't understand.

I didn't use the word "prejudice" at all, in fact, so technically this is correct. You're still wrong about the word "bigotry" though.

Your lack of imagination is not a compelling explanation of the political motivations of millions of people you want to pretend don't count

Oh? What definition are you using? The one I just checked in the dictionary agrees with me.

Let's take that long hard look. What aspects of a woman I never met should be more important to me than things that are in my life, and for bonus virtue signaling, why?

My post did not ask the question. I don't care one whit about your feelings for my mother, because you don't know her at all. You don't even know if she's alive or if I even know her. You are simply virtue signaling.

For that matter, although I don't particularly care, your uncharitable and incorrect summation of my view is also just virtue signaling. We get it! You have tremendous morals, the best morals.

Yeah if we just spin things the right way that'll fix...something.

Lotteries are picked randomly. Elections are chosen deliberately. It was not a toss of the dice that gave the win to trump, so any poll that did not predict him as the winner is by definition wrong.

Or to question your logic another way, what would a poll mean in the context of a lottery?

It's understandable that people would like everything to be connotation managed so their sensibilities are never offended, but it's also a very valuable skill to be able to turn off the ability to be offended and just try to comprehend the intended meaning of something. It makes communication so much more viable.

As there is no Trump cabinet as yet, this would only be something one should do if one were prejudging, i.e. engaging in bigotry. How poetic!

The revolution came about first, but the United States government was enacted by a vote of the second continental congress, formed of delegates from the thirteen colonies.

What I'm getting at is that the rulers of the new government voted to start it. That's pretty much what I'd expect from any government.

Literally every presidential victory is delivered by the electoral college, as has been required by the US Constitution since long before Donald Trump was a dirty thought. What is to discuss? For that matter, what is being obfuscated?

I expect this all ends in revolution of some sort. Our technological advances have far outpaced our government structures, so it's feeling like time to redo things.

I just scrolled around randomly and one of the moments is a group of young black men kicking an old white man [0]. I'm not sure what the message is here but it seems likely that the collators are playing fast and loose to pile the evidence on

[0] https://mobile.twitter.com/kmscodi/status/796554667748716545...

What luck that his publicly well-reasoned move supporting trump played out as he detailed, the dumb asshole.

Take a look sometime at the executive compensation that Obama's "smaller steps" provided for the insurance industry. They're definitely not lobbying against Obamacare.

I have no intense desire. I'm simply bored on the internet and long ago accepted that trump had the election in hand.

I also have no obligation to detail to you which arguments I challenge. Sorry.

I'm not going to say it's good that people have xenophobic interactions but not liking immigrants is and has been legal for some time

I personally prefer to let the people with the ugly opinions have their say so I know who they are and I can engage them. The plan to keep them in hiding can only work until they feel too much pressure and explode, which is just what happened

I guess what I'm saying is what you seem to be advocating is what just failed. I don't think going back to it will work either.

Who do you think voted to start the US government?

Are you trying to equate my distaste for your reasoning with sexual assault? This makes me assume that you're trolling, but I can't imagine to what end.