Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The smug style in American liberalism

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 435 posts

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#321

Post by jessaustin »

curun1r wrote: post #313
linkregister wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The major argument against Sanders was that his platform was unrealistic. Remembering the disappointment that President Obama stoked when he was unable to execute much of his platform, many Democratic electors said they wanted the candidate that had a more modest platform that could be realistically achieved. In hindsight, sure, you are right. It's hard to know what do in the moment.

Even if you concede that Sanders' platform was unrealistic, he would have been running against a candidate that wants to build a wall costing somewhere north of 11-figures, get Mexico to pay for it, negotiate better trade deals through sheer force of will and deport millions of illegal immigrants. It's clear the electorate didn't take reality into consideration when casting their votes.

Yeah, there are lots of Repubs who could make a plausible "realism" argument, but Trump isn't one of them.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#322

Post by thecynh »

ams6110 wrote: post #183
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've yet to meet a Trump voter who didn't meet that criteria. Just because people don't like to be described in a certain way doesn't mean that it doesn't describe them. Trump didn't win because of any sort of liberal catechism. He won because the media has done a bang up job of scaring the crap out of the average citizen about immigration and terrorism while pimping his brand because he's a perverse curiosity in a s…

I know some Trump supporters who are neither racist nor homophobic nor misogynistic. I also know Hillary voters who will drop the "N" word talking about blacks. You can't really divine who a person is by who they vote for.

> You can't really divine who a person is by who they vote for.

Can you elaborate a bit on this? Obviously you can't get to know EVERYTHING a person is just from what they vote for every 4 years but I always felt like you can't vote for Trump and not at least be OK with his sexism, misogyny and yes, racism. What am I missing (not being snarky here, not even from the US)

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#323

Post by ersii »

andars wrote: post #19
madaxe_again wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walls of flames here today. Suggest we flag political stories - HN is not the place. And that's coming from me .

Perhaps flag comments. But I think that it is essential to have political stories be visible today, so that we can try to understand why the election results are what they are. I posted this particular story because I have seen what it criticizes on HN more than anywhere else. Perhaps the article is wrong, but I thought an external opinion would be useful. Perhaps HN is not the place for political discussion. But it…

I would say that this was the perfect piece to be published on that exact day. I do fear that the tone of the article is too smug, even for "smug liberals" and that it might have been passed by plenty of people - especially the usual Vox readers.

I don't think it makes the article justice by trying to simply place it as "right" or "wrong". I'd be content to just point out that I think it covers a lot of history, divides and for lack of a better word, emotions or perspectives.

I'm not liberal, but I too constantly need to fight the need to be smug towards others and their choices.

Thank you for posting it. It was a worth the time to read.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#324

Post by madaxe_again »

ersii wrote: post #323
andars wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps flag comments. But I think that it is essential to have political stories be visible today, so that we can try to understand why the election results are what they are. I posted this particular story because I have seen what it criticizes on HN more than anywhere else. Perhaps the article is wrong, but I thought an external opinion would be useful. Perhaps HN is not the place for political discussion. But it…

I would say that this was the perfect piece to be published on that exact day. I do fear that the tone of the article is too smug, even for "smug liberals" and that it might have been passed by plenty of people - especially the usual Vox readers. I don't think it makes the article justice by trying to simply place it as "right" or "wrong". I'd be content to just point out that I think it covers a lot of history, divi…

Says the unbelievably smug guy.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#326

Post by thecynh »

jessaustin wrote: post #142
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've yet to meet a Trump voter who didn't meet that criteria. Just because people don't like to be described in a certain way doesn't mean that it doesn't describe them. Trump didn't win because of any sort of liberal catechism. He won because the media has done a bang up job of scaring the crap out of the average citizen about immigration and terrorism while pimping his brand because he's a perverse curiosity in a s…

This says more about you than about the American public in general. My brother and his wife, and many of the people with whom I work, are not "disgusting misogynistic racist pigs". Actually I know many more Trump voters than disgusting racist pigs. The media really couldn't help it, however. Every president from here on out will be a reality show star. Look for Chris Christie to get a show as soon as he gets booted o…

> My brother and his wife, and many of the people with whom I work, are not "disgusting misogynistic racist pigs".

I am sure they aren't (well actually I don't know, and as you rightly convey, I obviously CAN'T know just from their pro-Trump vote) but would you agree that people that voted for Trump have to be at least OK with being represented by one "disgusting misogynistic racist pig(s)" without themselves being one? … I really don't want to imply that all or even the majority of Trump voters are bad people (because I don't know any due to not being from the US) but they sure seem OK with having a repulsive person as their prime representative?

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#327

Post by zigzigzag »

silverbax88 wrote: post #208
rorykoehler wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama is a huge part of why this happened. He promised change and delivered empire.

Wait, what? He ran on fixing the economy (done), ending the war in Iraq (done), restoring our relationship with the rest of the world (done), universal health care (done) and improving the acceptance of minority groups (somewhat done - at least the LGBT community). Illegal immigration is down, unemployment is down, crime is down. There are definitely things Obama hasn't done, but he absolutely delivered change, and h…

Maybe the second time around.

The first time I remember him talking about reform of Washington.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#328

Post by vacri »

norea-armozel wrote: post #300
vacri wrote: post #4

Yes, liberals in America are all smug and holier-than-thou, unlike their ideological opponents, who really listen to what you have to say and never judge you ahead of time. And, of course, they never pass comment on how a person looks.

As a serious question. Do you think civil protections for LGBT people, gay marriage, and the like needs debate and/or negotiation? Because what makes some of us on the left come off smug or haughty is the fact that conservatives refuse to accept that we deserve those protections. Worse still, some of them think that LGBT people should be put into some kind of hospital to be "cured" because "JESUS!" I'm not trying to…

I find it ironic that some of the strongest shouters of "Freedom!" are anti-LGBT. The US has some powerfully conservative morals. In my own travels as a foreigner across the US (a straight white anglo male), I found that there were plenty of times I had to watch what I said or did. The big cities where people don't chant "Freedom" is where people acted freer, and the rural areas were opposite (broadly speaking).

I'm a centre-left in my own country, which would be far left in the US. Gay marriage is a non-issue to me, because it doesn't affect anyone that is not involved and consenting. I'm of the opinion that if those religious people who oppose it because it brings the devil or some such, if they want to ban it because of their beliefs, then they should step forward and provide some proof. If you want to meddle in a stranger's life, there should at least be some evidence, rather than a hunch.

Unfortunately I don't have a good answer for you, apart from the intolerant christians simply turning to religion because of easy answers. There's plenty of christians in the US who don't bludgeon their neighbours with their faith, and those people generally are up for discussion. It's like the Church of England in the UK - they're christian, but they're also perfectly normal people that can live beside people who don't behave the same as them. But if you're the kind of person who finds asking searching questions difficult, then a loud defense of your religion helps keep you 'safe'.

As for the smugness, I find it hilarious when conservatives talk about how smug progressives are, even as they're using a dismissive tone as they describe that smugness. The main article is a classic example of this, and my comment was just meant to point out that both sides do this tactic that the author so despises.

Unfortunately, the only way to get people to change these kind of deeply-held beliefs is to get them to ask themselves questions about it, and they may get there of their own accord. But if the other side isn't listening, then those questions can't be seeded.

A shorter form of my opinions on gay marriage is this: it's fucking outrageous that a completely unrelated person can get in the way of a loved one making important decisions for their partner (like medical care). Is there a need for debate on it? No, not if you're for 'Freedom'. And, of course, if a person is not for 'Freedom', then they must Hate America :)

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#329

Post by zigzigzag »

usmeteora wrote: post #135
yummyfajitas wrote: post #35

This is definitely the preference falsification election. Those who know me on HN know that I'm an outspoken proponent of unorthodox ideas. I'm regularly shouted down, called racist/evil/etc, downmodded and flagged on HN. I also get a steady stream of private emails: "I wouldn't say this publicly cause of the bullies, but that .gov link with all the data does seem to support you. I think you might be right, I need to…

I actually agree with you in some cases here. I'm not a huge fan of Hillary. However, as a young women working in technology and male dominated environments, it's really hard for me to believe the pathological sexism isnt a fundamentally limiting component in making everything better. I don't believe women should get free rides and everything should be equal overnight. I'm not a man hater. I know many educated male p…

Hillary was undone by her own sexism. Her loss and Trump's win is the final bankruptcy of feminist ideology, reaping what it sowed.

When Obama ran, did he repeatedly suggest people should vote for him because he was black? I don't recall so. I remember him talking about his policies and beliefs.

Hillary's campaign rapidly devolved after the primaries to "vote for me because I'm not Trump and I'm a (in my view) super competent woman". Her supporters slogan became "I'm with her".

The bigger problem though is how the Dems cleared the way for her to run almost unopposed except for Bernie, an independent who didn't give a crap what the Democrats thought. Trump defeated many primary challengers. Where were the D alternatives to Hillary? Apparently the idea spread that it was Hillary's "turn", that after a black man there should be a woman, and wouldn't that be a nice historical motif.

So the Dems tipped the playing field towards one of the weakest, most easily attacked candidates in US history. She can't give speeches. She has few policy ideas beyond starting a war with Russia (NFZ in Syria). She exudes corruption. She epitomises the widely disliked status quo. She has more skeletons in her closet than a medical student. She would have been the continuation of a dynasty. Yet somewhere, the groupthink-saturated world that decides these things decided it was time for a female President and after that her qualifications became irrelevant. Feminists, both male and female, became so transfixed with breaking "the last glass ceiling" that they grabbed the first female to come along and demanded she be made top dog.

Disagree? Give me a better explanation for how the Democrats mysteriously found themselves with an almost empty stable of primary challengers to Clinton.

People and especially women need to stop talking about gender imbalances or the "injustice" of them or how to fix them - it's yesterday's conversation. Trying to "fix" these non-problems by tipping the playing field towards women gives you Trump, a man who is the walking embodiment of not giving a shit about feminists. If the Dems had simply treated HRC as anyone else, they might be in power now.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#330

Post by zigzigzag »

tnmrnis wrote: post #113
gadders wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A similar thing happened with Brexit, and the last UK General Election. Right-leaning voters just can't be bothered to identify themselves and get involved in debates about it. They just vote.

The similar thing is happening all over europe right know. Right-leaning voters don't want to identify themselves because the negative social implications can be quite significant. Also the west seem to have lost its debate culture. These days most debates of conservatives and progressives in shouting 'commie' and 'racist' at each other. In a good debate you wanna help your opponent to give the best possible argument…

A key problem is that the internet, which should be the best debating forum ever created, is actually a waste of time because of downvotes.

I hate downvote buttons. Programmers seem to put them there only because we demand symmetry. If there's a plus there must also be a minus. I rarely, if ever, see negative votes used to suppress actual spam or obvious trolling ... the only place I've ever seen that actually happen is on Slashdot where the system actually does suppress auto-generated garbage, page-widening posts, etc. Everywhere else people use +/- buttons to indicate disagreement.

Unfortunately, the further left you go, the more you become convinced that people who disagree with you are dumb and easily manipulated. Thus suppressing opinions you disagree with becomes more and more acceptable. Thus downvoting any right-wing thinking into invisibility becomes not just acceptable but important. This trend of course culminates in far-left communist countries where political censorship is an official state policy.

So people with those opinions then rapidly learn that they aren't welcome, that people aren't interested in real debate ... and leave. Forums that could have been debating centers for mutual understanding turn into echo chambers.

The solution is to eliminate downvoting and do what Slashdot does: require you to pick a reason when upvoting, use randomly chosen moderators, and meta-moderate the moderators.

Post reply on HN