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

401–410 of 435 posts

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#401

Post by jessaustin »

thecynh wrote: post #326
jessaustin wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Trump is Br'er Rabbit, not a pig. The statements he made that have received the most opprobrium, were made precisely to receive that opprobrium. He correctly calculated that opprobrium, not the statements themselves, would gain him enough votes to win the election. Trump got far more votes from people who wished to reject the standard media narrative than from race-motivated one-issue voters.

The statements themselves may well be racist, but racist speech is a different thing than racist action. People who don't mind appearing to the weak-minded as racists may well actually be racists. However they are different sorts of racists than politicians like Richard Nixon and the Clintons who have destroyed minority lives and communities for political gain.

Children may be excused for only thinking about surface meanings, but after one has voted in several elections, it's time to put away childish things.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#402

Post by DefaultUserHN »

foldr wrote: post #398
DefaultUserHN wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which he also later clarified to meant immigrants from countries with direct ties to terrorism. And TEMPORARY only, until they can figure something out, like a vetting program, from those countries with direct ties to terrorism. He wants to protect everyone from terrorism. Yes, he wants to protect Muslims from terrorism too. He even asked them for their help in the fight against radical terrorism, because he knows th…

>Which he also later clarified to meant immigrants from countries with direct ties to terrorism. That's not a clarification, that's just saying something completely different from what he originally said.

But at no point was it racist like you claimed.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#403

Post by DefaultUserHN »

foldr wrote: post #397
DefaultUserHN wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I said, election rhetoric meant to smear the opponent. Voters are smarter than this. Voters care more about the real issues that are affecting them (jobs, economy, etc). They don't care who the KKK is voting for. The result of the election have shown that.

Huh? My point was that the KKK really was supporting Trump, whereas it was not really supporting Hillary.

We have no way of knowing whether they genuinely support Trump, or whether they did actually support Hillary like they claimed to. It's all election smearing and rhetoric, which voters don't care about, as the election results have shown.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#404

Post by DefaultUserHN »

pmyteh wrote: post #379
DefaultUserHN wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's really not clear it actually exists. It's pretty clear if you're a Trump supporter.

I get that social desirability bias is a thing, and that those with views considered socially unpopular are less willing to share them. But for a hypothetical Shy Tory effect to have an effect on polling you'd need something like all of the following: * Tories to be unwilling to admit to voting Tory (plausible); * Tories to claim to be voting for someone else, instead of refusing to answer, as if they refuse to answe…

So what are you suggesting for why the all polls were wrong? What do you think contributed to the inaccuracy of the polls?

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#405

Post by foldr »

DefaultUserHN wrote: post #403
foldr wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? My point was that the KKK really was supporting Trump, whereas it was not really supporting Hillary.

We have no way of knowing whether they genuinely support Trump, or whether they did actually support Hillary like they claimed to. It's all election smearing and rhetoric, which voters don't care about, as the election results have shown.

They didn't claim to support Hillary; see link. David Duke did, however, endorse Trump.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#406

Post by foldr »

DefaultUserHN wrote: post #402
foldr wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Which he also later clarified to meant immigrants from countries with direct ties to terrorism. That's not a clarification, that's just saying something completely different from what he originally said.

But at no point was it racist like you claimed.

We already covered that. You're changing the subject.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#407

Post by foldr »

zigzigzag wrote: post #400
foldr wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So my view is that they have no incentive to give the UK a good deal. Right. >This does not imply the UK should have remained It probably implies that we shouldn't have thrown a temper tantrum without having a strategy.

What would your strategy be for leaving?

I would not leave. I don't think there is a good strategy, which is why we should not have done it.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#408

Post by foldr »

Nursie wrote: post #388
foldr wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked for an argument against current levels of immigration that was neither based primarily on economic considerations nor racist/xenophobic. I really don't think there is any such argument. Unless you're really saying that people are opposed to immigration because they're worried about houses being built on the greenbelt.

Overcrowding of the country is a valid concern, for more than purely economic reasons, the south east is one of the nost densely populated parts of Europe already. As I say, if you want to see racism everywhere, and if you presume that the economic arguments are all won then fine, you just carry on shouting everyone down as mad and racist, and watch as your political viewpoints fail to gain traction over and over aga…

Ah yes, "overcrowded". Like the posh restaurant that’s “fully booked”, or the country club that’s “not accepting any new members at the moment”.

If people were really worried about overcrowding, they’d be advocating for a one child per couple policy, not trying to reduce already rather moderate migration figures.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#409

Post by pron »

tnone wrote: post #385
pron wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That much is clear, and the source of our differences. I do care about reality and I don't mind if bad people have learned true facts. That cannot possibly be our difference because I also care about reality and I don't mind if bad people have learned true facts. I have no reason to believe that I care about reality any less than you do. There are only two differences between our views : 1. I do not think there is…

Just like a creationist, when you finally stop going around in circles, you end up questioning the motivations of your opponent as a shaming attack, even as you insist they are not your business. This is what religion looks like.

First, I did not question anyone's motivations, simply expressed curiosity, because the scientific questions that interest yummyfajitas are so unusual. It was through him that I first learned of contemporary scientific racism, and I am truly and honestly curious about this. E.g., how far do they go? Do they also think we should investigate whether people of Irish descent are more intelligent than people of German descent? If so, what are their hypotheses? Are they also interested in studying qualities like sense of humor? Love of satirical novels? To my ears, someone saying that we must know the truth about whether or not blacks are dumber than whites sounds no less bizarre than someone who says we must know by how much the angle of a cat's raised tail changes after dreaming of mice, and to anyone who asks why this question is of so much interest, they say, "why are you trying to hide the truth?" I think most scientist find a person's (let alone a group's) fascination with such questions of far greater scientific interest and importance than the actual answer to the questions.

Second, I don't know how much you're involved with the scientific community, but every researcher is required to explain their motivation for studying just about anything (at least in the first half of their careers, and even when they're not required, it is something that they're expected to be able to answer when interviewed, for example). That's just how science works. Third, I don't recall making any kind of attack in this thread.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#410

Post by DefaultUserHN »

foldr wrote: post #405
DefaultUserHN wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have no way of knowing whether they genuinely support Trump, or whether they did actually support Hillary like they claimed to. It's all election smearing and rhetoric, which voters don't care about, as the election results have shown.

They didn't claim to support Hillary; see link. David Duke did, however, endorse Trump.

I understand.

They claimed to have donated $20,000 to Hillary. The website claimed the claim is false.

We will never know, but more importantly, the voters didn't really care who the KKK was supporting, as the election results have shown.

Post reply on HN