> but almost none of them wanted me to use their names
Half of their beliefs leftists treat like heresy. So nobody wants to be hunted by inquisitors.
> as she worried she’d lose her job
Hopefully nowadays for heresy you are just fired.
What I Heard from Trump Supporters
691–700 of 906 posts
Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters
#692Earlier quoted context omitted.
I bunch of things you talk about show all the symptoms of the bubble effect. People don't believe in things because they personally analyzed everything and came to a conclusion. You don't believe that a fossil in a museum is 5,000 years old, or a painting is truly made by Da Vinci 500 years ago, you trust 'experts', even though your own intuition would be against it. So for instance, if I showed you a painting and as…
I totally agree that my observations are symptomatic of a bubble. That doesn't change that there are a meaningful differences between bubbles. People who blindly trust scientific consensus live in a bubble, but it's the best kind of bubble. The Obamacare scenario you describe doesn't match up with reality. It's not true that they oppose Obamacare on rational grounds (e.g. I don't want my insurance to go up). Obamacar…
And Romneycare is a state-level implementation of the mandate-and-subsidy proposal that various national Republicans and the insurance industry came up with as the recommended national healthcare policy in the wake of the failure of the Clinton plan in the 1990s when there was still pressure for a national policy.
Of course, by sometime in Bush's Presidency, the dominant proposal among Republicans who thought there should be a national policy (which was a shrinking number) had evolved: it was still a mandate and subsidy plan, but now restricted to high-deductible plans tied to HSAs.
Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters
#693Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering Trump didn’t write any of his own books, and hasn’t read a whole book in decades (including the ones he puts his name on), why would reading “his” book give an accurate impression of his ideas, vs. just listening directly to the source (his tweets and campaign rallies)? Anything “coherent”/“nuanced”/“subtle” is the invention of the ghostwriter, a kind of best-guess translation from word salad to something…
> and hasn’t read a whole book in decades source please.
Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters
#694What a great example of white male privilege. "My access to toys like shotguns is more important than your rights to abortion/basic human rights as a trans person/..."
We detached this flagged subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13698220.
Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters
#695We are unwelcoming to people who are factually wrong. If you deny science, basic human rights, if you lack compassion for people who come from less fortunate countries, if you feel you're entitled to things others are not, then yes, I can proudly say silicon valley as well as other liberal enclaves are very unwelcoming to such people. Lastly, we do not, and will not welcome anyone who elects a man like trump just to…
We detached this flagged subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13698201.
Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters
#696Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Then I read a casually racist opinion from a red tribe member or hear another xenophobic policy proposed by Trump and swing right back to a. I understand and respect that - but my friends who do that seem to also turn a blind eye to riots and beatings from folks "the left". There just seems to be a lot of double standards with saying fringe wackos on one side represent the entire group, but not the the side.
This phenomenon is explained well here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything... It's long, but I think worth the read.
Excellent excellent link! Thanks for posting it. Seriously... thank you.
Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters
#697Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You further give no means by which to do so, and rule out one of the more important ways of influencing someone--social stigma. Come on, dude. I only ruled out harassment and attempts to get people fired. If you can't think of any other ways to "challenge someone's ideas" on your own, you're beyond help from me.
I'd love for you to address the other points in my response: Thiel is hired for his ideas. You say that he can not be fired for his ideas. This is a problem.
> Thiel is hired for his ideas. You say that he can not be fired for his ideas. This is a problem.
Here, I'll try to address it, using simple words:
There are different kinds of ideas. He was hired for his business ideas. It is not a problem that he shouldn't be fired because he has other kinds of ideas, too. People should be allowed to have different ideas. It wrong and immature to want to hurt them because they disagree with you. You are not doing good by trying to hurt them. Trying to hurt people is bad.
If you disagree, instead of hurting them, you can try to express your ideas without trying to hurt them. You could express yourself by writing a blog, by writing obtuse internet comments, by peacefully holding a sign somewhere, or by doing something creative! Just don't try to creatively hurt people, because hurting people is bad.
Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters
#698Honestly not sure this sheds much light. Doesn't it boil down to: I always vote Republican regardless, sorry. I vote according to my pet wedge issue (usually guns or abortion), sorry. I'm bigoted and racist but I'm not going to admit to that. The alternative candidate wasn't very appealing so I figured why not? I liked the idea of a bomb-thrower, sorry.
"I always vote Republican regardless, sorry." I wonder if there's more of that than we realise, the Republican vote has been pretty consistent in recent elections.
There is a larger percentage than you would think that vote republicans simply because they are anti-abortion. They do not care one bit about what the candidate thinks besides that and it's why this decades old topic is still a fucking talking point.
Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters
#699Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like your logic. "You know, I have never been a victim of a murder, therefore murders don't happen". When a company publicly announces "we're affirmative action company", I understand it as they openly exercise racism and/or sexism against me. And trust me, as a divorced guy, I've experienced institutionalized sexism A LOT.
So, why do you attribute the institutionalized sexism of divorce proceedings to what the "radical left promotes"?
Because they promote institutionalized sexism in general: in family laws, in workspaces ("affirmative action"), they bully innocent people ("shirt gate"), they bring that stupid gender war into deeply technical areas (".bro is bad, because it's not gender-neutral"), that's why.
Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters
#700Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is there a fair way of denigrating Trump supporters? Yes, by realizing that he won because of his economics, not his social positions. The rust belt votes of economic issues, which allowed him to win. The poor in the area lean to whoever will help them not be poor, or at least say they'll try. Clinton embodied the status quo, Trump was change. They might not have liked him, and in fact a sizable majority do not, bu…
> Yes, by realizing that he won because of his economics, not his social positions. You're responding to a post by sama where he interviews people who voted for Trump, and his findings match what we already knew: this wasn't about economics. Why would it be when unemployment is below 5%? Just look at the answers people gave when asked "What do you like about Trump".
Quoting the unemployment rate at 4.9% is disingenuous at it doesn't look at the participation rate, which has dropped 3% in the past 10 years (aka 10 million people). This unemployment rate also doesn't look at individual regions like the rust belt, which won Trump the election. There's a sizable group that did vote him in on his social positions, which is the common 40% of voters (the battle for an election isn't concerned with the 'base' which is about 80% of the voters, being 40% left and 40% right, it worries about the 20% in the middle, and those middle voters were the rust belt that swayed the election). So although you can say a many Trump voters wanted his social politics, he won because of his economics.
And I understand the selection of the narratives the author used. Like I've said, I live in a small Midwest town.