Dude, I'm also European and I've spent 25 years listening to and debating with conservative people - in person, on the net, at academic gatherings and many other places. I have studied a wide variety of conservative philosophies and social groups. At what point are you OK with me drawing some conclusions, even temporary working conclusions that I might have to alter later?

When I hear comments like this, the overriding impression I have is that thinking about this stuff is rather new to you and you are hesitating out of uncertainty. But it's a mistake to assume that people with stronger opinions than your own have not put in the hours to think through the issues.

As always, there are exceptions (like you). Which is broadly what the comment was claiming - Trump voters are not 100% made up of nazis, in essence.

A Trump voter that votes Trump because of some economic point also votes in support of all the other policies that Trump stands for and so carries fractional responsibility.

edit: a good chunk of this is that all this sets up "damned if you do, damned if you don't, double-damned if you choose the winning side". This doesn't encourage more people to get involved, it just drives them away from trying. That's the exact opposite of what we need.

Even then it probably was too late but who knows, maybe there would have been a way to push back against the brownshirts.

Historians are not in agreement on this subject, there is a school of thought that the whole thing might have been averted.

The main culprit (the treaty of Versailles) was a 'winner takes all' arrangement that sowed the seeds for WWII, Hitler merely tapped in to the resentment that was already there and managed to wreck Europe for two generations as a result of that. In the end Germany ended up much worse than where they started as a result of their 'Germany First' policy.

I think the main lesson learned here is that if the spoils from globalization aren't divided in a fair way there will be a huge backlash (predictable), unfortunately turning the clock back will result in yet another backlash.

These pendulum swings are way too fast and violent for society to adapt without damage.

Now what do you expect them to do when they're offered the chance to vote for two new candidates, neither of which they approve of? Personally, I expect them to run the other way, rather than voting.

When I call people out for being racist I assure it is not for want of having listened to them first. I'm absolutely in favor of listening to people, but there are also times when you need to firmly declare your opposition to their ideas and your intent to obstruct them.

Not all ideologies are morally equivalent, and I am opposed to any ideology that seeks to limit or reduce the rights of individual people in order to promote compliance with some abstract moral standard as opposed to some utilitarian one where you can demonstrate a harm exceeding a putative benefit.

"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

How is the comment I was replying to at all civil?

Meanwhile, I was equated with somebody tacitly approving of segregation. Because I'm telling someone else that it's more productive to understand why this is happening than look for retribution.

Civility is about more than tone. hsod's tone was fine but his comment certainly wasnt; my tone was harsh but I maintain it was appropriate for the kind of accusations I was replying to.

It wasn't, by the site's guidelines and patient explanation by a moderator. These aren't laws of physics, just the norms of the venue. Would you 'maintain' it's appropriate to show up at a stranger's funeral waving a lighter and yelling 'Freebird'? Same thing.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

People might accept welfare, but that doesn't mean they feel OK about it. Many people, conservatives especially, want jobs. People want to feel that they support a family, without help. Poor conservatives don't seek to tax the rich because that would feel unethical.

So yes, life is tough for these people, but they really don't want to feel that it is also unfair. They don't want to cheat, they don't want others to cheat, and they don't want the government helping anybody to cheat. An equal chance is demanded, but an equal outcome is at best a nice-to-have. (possibly undesirable because the non-lazy should be rewarded)

There is no lack of understanding here. It's a different value system.

I'm not telling you to listen to the xenophobic demographic, but to listen to those who are willing to disregard their moral limits in order not to vote for the other side.

Trump has gotten votes from wildly diverse demographics. He's hijacked two parties he doesn't belong to just to win the election and he did win the election. Think of analyzing this as a post-mortem: What went wrong, why did people vote for somebody like this, etc.

Anyway, what I was trying to communicate (and seem to have failed to) in my earlier comment was that like in any post-mortem it's pointless to try and point fingers and assign blame. What good is "holding people accountable" going to do, other than strenghten the divide?