It's quite similar to the post-Brexit discussions, how pro-Bexit people are stupid, etc.
We can talk about what a "liar, misogynist, tech illiterate, arrogant and overall a disgusting human being" he is all we want. It would probably be fine, as in it wouldn't really matter, if he was some random radical weirdo with an audience of a dozen equally weird folks. But he's the President-elect.
So we can continue with this circle jerk rant about what a disgusting human being is and what his voters are like. Or we can try to actually understand why so many people voted for him. But in order to do that, we need to stop the whole rant that never changes.
I am not pro-Trump. In fact, my safety largely depends on NATO and Trump poses a threat. But there's no point in shouting about what a misogynist he is. It's so counterproductive.
Except I didn't call voters stupid, I simply summarized what Trump said.
> We can talk about [...] It would probably be fine [...] But he's the President-elect.
Of course we can talk about it. We have freedom of speech (wasn't this the original point?). You mean to tell me he can say whatever he wants but I can't call him out because he's the president-elect?
I get it that everyone whats to prevent things from going worse but we shouldn't close our eyes or accept whatever Trump happens to say or do out of fear. He shouldn't be allowed to do whatever he wants because "we must be united". He should be called out and, if necessary held accountable.
If the borders were controlled and immigration was regulated, then you have no Nazis gaining support.
This is the side effect of these open borders policies in Germany.
The liberal strategy is fundamentally flawed. Fighting racism through driving it underground is not the right approach.
Its so sad.
Racist and misogynist are very heavy terms, and once they are in the mix, there is no way a moderate is going to go near the discussion. It is like "you are racist, racists shouldn't be listened to, I will not listen to you".
There have been so many comments like this in this thread - even when the original comment is pointing this out. Sigh.
Its so great to learn something I did not think of during a discussion like this. Its exactly what its for.
> Bias, bias, bias, and bias.
And also share with you a special kind of bias you might be victim of: confirmation bias.
Also your quotes:
> Racist and misogynist are very heavy terms
> On misogyny - she (Clinton) has never attacked a woman's character before?
So, misogyny is a very heavy term, but you consider it's ok to attribute it to someone who simply attacks a woman's character (which actually has nothing to do with any definition of misogyny).
Also, if you need proof that those terms weren't used lightly, I urge you to read another of my comments [1] where I posted videos of Trump proving he deserves being called that.
>> And what Trump said showed he's a liar, misogynist, tech illiterate, arrogant and overall a disgusting human being.
And Clinton is not a liar, not a tech illiterate, not arrogant, and not disgusting human being? On misogyny - she has never attacked a woman's character before?
Bias, bias, bias, and bias.
> People listen up until the point you prove to them you're not worth listening to.
Do you believe you are rationale. Everyone is saying that you lost the election because you didn't listen. This has real consequences. ACA will be repealed. Etc. Etc.
And you still have the attitude of: "I don't want to listen". All I can say is thank you - because now it doesn't matter anymore.
The libs got to use to not having to back up their claims through a confirmation bias from their echo chamber.
I'm not defending the behavior of Democratic Party supporters, but can you recognize the hypocrisy in your behavior just now?
I am not using libs as a derogatory term. Liberals vs conservatives. Left vs right. I think the division is pretty clear.
I absolutely don't mean to come across talking down to you :)
This election I really saw the "liberal media" that everyone always talks about. Clinton had such a history that it made it clear as day. "Super predators", Jewish slurs, all the emails, Hillary's treatment of women after Bill's affairs, etc, etc.
Look at the NYTimes front pages during the election.
That is perfectly logical in a 2 (effectively) candidate election
> so that makes it OK
How? This is your interpretation.
If you have a choice of two, you must pick one. You have to weight up the options. choosing one doesn't automatically mean endorsing it as the post possible choice, but just the better of the given options.
If done properly then abstention is a perfectly valid alternative to not voting at all, because your vote means it's more difficult for the parties to obtain a majority. If you don't vote then (ideally) you have no effect on the numbers. Whether this is how the US system works, I don't know, hence the ideally.
No doubt. ALL politicians are to some extent.
> misogynist,
because? Misogyny is literally HATRED of women, like, treating them really harsh. I dont think the democrats were convincing at that
> tech illiterate,
He seems to be handling twitter quite great
> arrogant
No doubt about that but sociopathy is a frequent characteristic of leaders
> and overall a disgusting human being
Disgust is visceral aversion, and can be very personal. Not an argument
Are you willing to negotiate any of your positions or are they set in stone? It seems the liberals went full hard-line mode, and ignored half of america.
> People listen up until the point you prove to them you're not worth listening to.
So basically , what the others say is garbage, deplorables, end of conversation. That's the point, swjs broke off the conversation with "you know what i m not arguing with you, you re a deplorable". Thats not how you convince people, you have to try harder.
disclosure: i m not american but watched the war of words from afar.
No, it's not. I won't quote dictionaries, you can look it up on wikipedia. You can also find compilations of all the offensive remarks he made regarding women.
> ALL politicians are to some extent.
True. Indeed, we're all liars. However, Trump seems to disregard the truth when it stands right next to him. Even in the face of irrefutable proof he doesn't back down. That's worse than lying.
> He seems to be handling twitter quite great
I wouldn't call handling twitter tech literacy, but he's taking an aggressive stance against Apple's privacy policy for example.
> Disgust is visceral aversion, and can be very personal. Not an argument
I kindly disagree. At some point so much garbage is piled up you can't help but sum it up in a very personal way: disgusting. Also, as a human being I can't help but have feelings. And I would argue they're a rational response to everything I witnessed this election.
You bring up an interesting point. The definition of "Misogyny" in wikipedia in 2004:
Misogyny is an exaggerated pathological aversion towards women.
became in 2016:
Misogyny is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls.
I can't help but see the broadening of the definition throughout the years. It happens a lot with words ending in '-phobia' as well. Food for thought.
For the record the word miso-gyny etymologically means "hatred of women"
And they decide that based on emotions, which marks them as not being capable of rational discussions.
Here's what seems irrational from my perspective:
1. Bob votes to elect Mike Pence, who takes the position "Homosexuality is incompatible with military service" [mikepence.com]
2. Dan, who is homosexual and in the military and Facebook friends with Bob since they started hanging out in college, finds out Bob voted for Mike Pence.
3. Dan says to Bob, "Yo man, that's pretty bigoted of you to vote for that guy."
4. Bob says I'm not a bigot.
5. Bob doesn't empathize with Dan or understand that Dan is really just pissed Bob took away his ability to serve the country in the military by electing Mike Pence.
[mikepence.com]: https://web.archive.org/web/20020206052612/http://www.mikepe...
Given, Dan can't change the fact he's gay.
Given, Mike Pence has formally expressed that "Homosexuality is incompatible with military service" and signed into law legislation allowing businesses in Indiana to kick out gay customers when he was governor of Indiana.
Given, Mike Pence's party controls the Congress, Executive, and Legislative branches of government.
It follows it is likely harmful to homosexual people to elect Mike Pence. And the burden for explaining why that risk is okay falls on the people who vote for Pence and who don't want to be seen as racist, because it sure looks racist.
Taking the extreme positions in a logical argument help to reveal the inconsistencies.
Its all about what each party prioritises.
The liberals prioritised certain things above all else. Its a very principaled yet emotional approach.
If an establishment candidate like Hillary is seen as harmful to Bob, is there a burden on Dan to explain why the risk of voting for her is Ok?
Does that distinction make sense?
1. Investigate "why"
2. Avoid partisan statements
3. Ask myself, if it were Obama instead of Trump would I feel the same way. And if the answer is no, I keep searching for the right message.
No it could not. What you just said defies reason.
As an aside, I should note that weighing ones' emotions in a decision is not an inherently irrational process.
As opposed to who?
And this is what creates the echo chamber. Which prevents you from hearing the silent majority who decided this election.
Sure, you and Donald Trump can say whatever you please. Nobody's restricting your freedom of speech. However, what you say betrays who you are. And what Trump said showed he's a liar, misogynist, tech illiterate, arrogant and overall a disgusting human being.
> "What happens if the situation is reversed and someone said they don't want to listen to me?"
People listen up until the point you prove to them you're not worth listening to.