Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nice. You quoted something I didn't say. Twice. That says a lot more about you than it does about me.
'scarmig: ...the large majority of people seem to be taking from this experience the learning that Trump voters are all disgusting misogynistic racist pigs... you: I've yet to meet a Trump voter who didn't meet that criteria. Are you confused by the English language? Is threaded conversation a new concept for you?
The smug style in American liberalism
351–360 of 435 posts
Re: The smug style in American liberalism
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 o…
That's the trouble in a two party (Winner-takes-all AKA first-past-the-post) system is that you can never tell who genuinely approves of Trump, and who merely disapproves of Clinton. Would you be OK with being represented by a crook, without yourself being one?
And no, I would not be OK with being represented by a crook. If you are asking for my personal opinion in case of HRC/DT I'd still would have preferred her downsides over his though. Good thing I didn't have to chose I guess.
Re: The smug style in American liberalism
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yeah, but there are strong statistical correlations between party affiliation and personal/moral views. Example: Trump voters generally support repealing abortion. They also are heavily white, and either old. or young and poorly educated.
Re: The smug style in American liberalism
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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)
...and you can't vote for Hillary without being OK with obstructing democracy, corporate bailouts, and welfare handouts. At least that's how a lot of people felt who didn't want to vote for Hillary. (I preferred her to Trump, personally.) People have different priorities. It can be really hard to care about various isms when your life has been borderline misery for a half decade or more.
Thanks for your input.
Re: The smug style in American liberalism
#355Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with this reasoning (and by extension, any system where there's a possibility to opt out of healthcare) is that if you have a serious ailment that you can't afford to treat, we have to let you die. But I believe even in the USA you will get (emergency) treatment and the bills racked up, right?
The problem with insurance is that literally everyone will have a serious ailment one day. Very few people die instantly, huge majority of deaths are from cancer and cardiovascular
It's a problem because humans are wussies that can't live with their decisions.
Re: The smug style in American liberalism
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is one of the things I don't understand about modern politics, morally conservative always seem to go towards extreme capitalism and morally progressives tend to go towards socialism. Personally I'm more middle of the road on socialism VS capitalism. But I tend to vote and align with parties on their moral stance. Even though Trump appears to have a crappy personal Moral standard his policies at least align more…
>here are actually themes in the Bible that talk about a "worker deserving his wage", and "if a man doesn't work he doesn't eat". wow some fantastic turns of logic you are using. Christian means Christ-like. did Christ preach social darwinism, or did he spend his time with prostitutes and lepers? Did Christ preach having the poor fend for themselves, or did he feed the hungry? Did Christ praise the wealthy, or does h…
> Christianity, as many hastened to point out, is about love. Christ commands us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. If the Bible took any position on the issue at all, it was that divorce, beloved by Davis, was a sin, and that she was a hypocrite masquerading among the faithful.
> How many of these critiques were issued by atheists?
> This, more than anything I can recall in recent American life, is an example of the smug style.
Re: The smug style in American liberalism
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most EU immigration is to London and the South East, somewhere that already feels like it's creaking at the seems and overcrowded. We could start a massive programme of building houses and infrastructure, but that would further change the face of the country. Limiting immigration would alleviate some of the pressure. That's just one off the top of my head. Remember, the point made in this article is not that you have…
>Most EU immigration is to London and the South East, somewhere that already feels like it's creaking at the seems and overcrowded. > Limiting immigration would alleviate some of the pressure. First of all, housing is an economic issue. Second, London voted overwhelmingly for remain. I live in London. No-one here seriously thinks that London’s housing crisis can be solved by stopping immigration. Nor did the country…
None are so blind as those who will not see.
I wasn't only talking about housing provision, I was talking about housing in terms of changing the face of the country and increasing urbanisation.
I said London and the South East, not just London, and there were Brexit voters in London, approximately 3.5 million of them.
But at least we're engaging now, rather than using terms like "mad"
Re: The smug style in American liberalism
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "Shy Tory" problem. I'm continually amazed at how pundits brush it aside.
It's really not clear it actually exists. Both the 2015 general election and Brexit misses were primarily due to turnout modeling problems: people accurately reported which candidate they preferred, but different groups turned out in different numbers than had happened historically, so the (educated) guess about who would actually vote turned out to be wrong. The British Polling Council postmortem is a very interesti…
It's pretty clear if you're a Trump supporter.
Re: The smug style in American liberalism
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
She absolutely embodies the outdated and old school corrupt version of aggressive angry corrupt feminism and was riding on the idea of being a female but outside of that was not a compelling candidate, and was a bad choice for females in the first place.
I would love to see a Female President in my lifetime, but a qualified one who sets a good example for women not validating an outdated extremist feminist gone awry version.
However, that is unrelated in my opinion about the degrading and vulgar comments Trump has made about his female employees, and Hillary is unrelated to the men that have personally spoken to me that way, who are only going to feel further validated by this election.
I absolutely agree with you about this, and I think this happening to Hillary is a good thing, because it is an impetus for women to actually change and not just cry "I'm a woman".
I don't get respect from the men I work with because I am a woman and play the gender card, I get respect from the men I work with because my work is up to par and I DONT play that card.
With that being said, every guy I work with for the past few days has gone out of their way to make it clear to me they do not support men who talk to women the way Trump has spoken of woman, because they view me as a real person who is capable of being hurt by comments like this, not a freebie that comes in a party launch goodie bag, and NONE of them want to be associated with it.
But yes, I agree with you regarding Hillary's campaign.
Re: The smug style in American liberalism
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are other reasons to support Trump. Being an unorthodox person who they perceived as nonjudgemental, quite a few people have confided in me that they like him. Only one of these people was white, several were female, and none are particularly racist. Reasons I've been told include: - A "fuck you" to the establishment and orthodoxy. - A belief that Hillary is corrupt. - Entertainment value. One Trump voter I kno…
I've done a fair bit of arguing with the folks here on HN, it's interesting because it doesn't match the echo chamber I have on twitter or facebook. There seem to be a lot of Trump supporter here, which I find very surprising. This idea keeps coming up again and again that using the word 'racist' in the context of the Trump campaign is essentially name-calling, an insult. The problem is, racism is a big, big, big iss…
There you go with the name calling again. How about you listen to Trump supporters for once. Or maybe you just don't want to know the real reason why Trump supporters supported Trump.
Stop talking and start listening.