And then I've been told I can't understand, can't have a real opinion, etc. cause I'm a white guy and thus too privileged for my mind to comprehend things correctly.
Even on HN, the yc guys actually said they cannot understand how Thiel can support Trump. If you find yourself saying that, it indicates your understanding is deficient, not the other way around.
It annoys me because this lack of critical thinking is going to cause a huge backlash and I'm afraid some positive liberal values could be collateral damage.
For example if someone's weights are:
disruptor, 100
shows signs of insanity, 0.1
then I can "understand" that they support DT. I can't understand why they choose to weigh certain factors like that.
My philosophy professor used to give us a ethical debate prompt, and we'd develop our initial positions. Then he'd have us argue the opposite position. Extremely helpful exercise.
"Hillary's only claim to fame is she is the only woman not to suck Bill's cock. "
"god this interviewer. CUCKED"
"FBI Stumbled onto Huma's INS Policy to keep her from being Vince Fostered... 53 dead around hillary makes the mob look like Pikers."
"Liberals think Taxes are more important than Hillary Butchering People!!!! Really?! Wake up peeps"
"Wikileaks will ultimately put the Clintons in prison and will hopefully allow President Trump to prosecute the entire Obama administration past and present!"
Most of Trump's HIGH ENERGY comes from him and his supporters saying over-exaggerated things. Everyone who supports him understands that these things are over the top, but they agree with the basic sentiment behind them.
Most people who dislike Trump, however, take everything he and his supporters say literally. This is a mistake.
For example, you can say that Trump didn't really mean you should vote twice, and perhaps he didn't. On the other hand, that isn't stopping some of his supporters from voting twice. So did he mean it? Or is he just accidentally encouraging it because some people are taking him literally? Either way is bad.
Trump's staff didn't kick the guy chanting "Jew-S-A" out of his rally. Conway says she would have kicked him out, which is nice, but nobody on the ground did it. Does that mean Trump thinks the chanter was just over-exaggerating his racism? Would it be OK for Trump to chant the same thing, since we're not supposed to take him literally?
I think it's preferable if people running for President make it clear when they're being sincere.
Unfortunately, this type of media attack on Trump, whatever you think of him, is common, and it makes people think twice about the credibility of the media and how they're pushing Clinton so very hard.
Furthermore, it seems like a really bad idea for people to base their voting decisions on what "supporters" of a candidate are doing, especially given that we've seen hard evidence of paid infiltrators agitating as fake supporters in order to make candidates look bad.
For example, when he says that vaccinations and doctors cause autism [1], how can I tell if he really believes that (which has bad implications for public health under a Trump presidency), or if it is just something over the top?
Same with climate change...how do I tell if he really believes it is a Chinese plot [1] to get us to cripple our economy, or he is just saying something over the top?
If these are just over the top exaggerations for the sake of HIGH ENERGY, and his supporters understand "that these things are over the top, but they agree with the basic sentiment behind them", could you explain just what that basic sentiment is?
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-comments-on...
He can say anything he wants and get away with it (... and he literally has).
There is some precedent here. Berlusconi in Italy was a similar character (another a-hole media billionaire) who ended up making Italian politics a laughing-stock by grossly mismanaging the running of government. Like Trump, he appealed to fake old-timey values, people were willing to ignore his appalling behavior and character flaws and accept him like some nasty uncle-like figure.
Unfortunately, someone like Trump as president in the USA would be capable of far more damage geopolitically and economically than that clown, Berlusconi, in Italy ever could.
What specific actions do you think Trump would take that'd create so much damage? And are those things more damaging than allowing a corrupt party (see WL emails on DNC on Bernie) to win? To say hey, corruption's OK in the US, even when it's totally public? Or to get people to think that war with Russia, even if in another country, might be OK?
Knowingly or not, Trump has played the media like a fiddle, giving them tons of useless grist in which to spin their wheels in exchange for the equivalent of a Billion dollars in media time which he has used shrewdly to build up his base.
1. Trump himself leaked the Access Hollywood recording; and
2. There was nothing relevant in the Access Hollywood recording.
The Access Hollywood recording came out at the beginning of this month, so I'm not sure if that's the one you're referring to.
Here's a great cap of it at the end of the day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPnMfSJ_qis - skip to 1:50. You can even hear the studio crew start laughing as they realise they've been played.
Imagine that you're older, let's say 40, and no longer a college kid. Do you think you will be more likely to describe Trump's statements as "HIGH ENERGY" (all caps) or "childish"?
My favorite takeaway so far:
[Thiel on Trump] "The media always takes him literally, but never seriously. I think his supporters take him seriously, but never literally."