|
Post by Amadan on Oct 5, 2018 8:55:58 GMT -5
Yes, we take them out of the outgroup, because we know them. My point was once you know someone, you don't see them as horrible, not that they're still horrible and you just ignore it. Sigh. I guess I am the one fighting, then. Or maybe I am just confused. But see, I don't get the first part. If I said "Nazis are horrible and we should not be friends with them," and then I learned someone I liked was a a Nazi... well, I'd possibly be confused and upset, but I'd also stop being friends with him. Or maybe I'd have to reevaluate what I think of Nazis. But probably I'd stop being friends with him. Either all Nazis are horrible (including your friend) or not all Nazis are horrible. I can't just exclude someone from a group because I know them personally.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 5, 2018 9:10:53 GMT -5
The Nazi example doesn't quite work because Nazis. Say you think all Trump supporters are racist. You meet and become friends with a Trump supporter and learn he is not, in fact, racist. So you take them out of the "Horrible People" group. One can rightly argue that this proves not all Trump supporters are racist. But since no one said they were.... but apparently that was your impression. It wasn't mine.
What I took NT To be saying I totally agree with. I have an extremely negative opinion of those people at Trump rallies who cheered when Trump mocked Dr. Ford. I seriously doubt that the cheerers and mockers could change my opinion of who they really are as people. They are, at the very least, maddeningly ignorant. And I just cannot tolerate that shit anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 5, 2018 10:58:52 GMT -5
You really want to dig in on this "You are being unfair to NT and I must defend him." Okay. I wasn't calling out NT or trying to start a fight with him or you, but you want that.
This is the conversational sequence (excised judiciously to keep from reposting the entirety of half the thread):
You apparently read that very last paragraph and concluded NT was talking specifically about Trump supporters who were mocking Dr. Ford at one rally.
I read the entire thread and it seemed to me that he was dumping on all Trump supporters and the idea that I might know any decent ones or make an effort to understand them. Hence my wondering why he makes an exception for celaw. And it really was wondering, not trying to "call him out" - I just didn't get how he could speak so nicely of celaw in one post and almost immediately thereafter sneer at me because I said I know some Trump supporters I get along with.
NT could speak for himself, since he's been Liking all your posts and thus is clearly enjoying the exchange.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 5, 2018 11:15:52 GMT -5
These are the people I'm supposed to understand? These goobers? You go right ahead and be understanding to the Trump Zombies, Amadan. But miss me with that. I already understand cruelty. I already understand misogyny. I already understand how easy it is to pander to fear and prejudice and ignorance. These people have nothing to teach me and I won't waste my time arguing with hateful, vile, stupid people.
There is no "supposed to." I am not suggesting actions for you. I am curious how you differentiate between celaw and all the hateful, vile, stupid Trump Zombies, though.
Easily. Trump got 62,979,636 votes in 2016 and celawson is included in that number. Over time through trial and error, we have formed a mutual respect despite having nothing in common politically. She's made a conscious decision to put up with Trump's immense bullshit in exchange for the positives she sees coming from his presidency. That's her ideological blindspot. For my part I don't think there are any positives in this living abortion of a presidency, but that's just my ideological blindspot kicking in. I have no interest in forging a similar rapport with the other 62,979,635. Ain't nobody got time for dat.
There is no "supposed to." I am not suggesting actions for you. I am curious how you differentiate between celaw and all the hateful, vile, stupid Trump Zombies, though.
Isn't this how it is, though? You know someone who you politically disagree with, but they're your family, or your friend, or they are just plain NICE, and there is a helluva lot of life and social interactions that happen outside of politics. We're all, I think, still capable of interacting this way with people we disagree with politically. NT's (and others') disdain for Trumpers, by and large, isn't any different from c.e.'s disdain for liberals, by and large. So it's fair to ask c.e. the same question. It is interesting that there's a tendency to ignore the outliers (friends, family, nice people) that don't fit the narrative of Horrible People, and yet still believe that a huge population of Horrible People exist. Partisan politics thrives on the existence of an unseen yet most certainly evil "other side," and all the horrible stories about how they want to kill babies, or black people, or steal your money, or let you die, or whatever. People don't see each other, and everyone needs an enemy to rail against. It is interesting that there's a tendency to ignore the outliers (friends, family, nice people) that don't fit the narrative of Horrible People, and yet still believe that a huge population of Horrible People exist.
I don't differentiate, though.
I don't categorically believe all Trump voters are evil and stupid. They have their reasons, and some are worse than others. Some are indeed ignorant mouth-breathing zombies. Some are basically ethical people who have very strong ideological blinders. I think celaw is in the latter category. Which doesn't mean I respect her reasoning or her honesty, because she's clearly aware of the cognitive dissonance she's suffering on some level, but, you know, abortion and socialized medicine and the Clintons, so voting anything other than Republican is just never going to be an option for her. It's unfortunate, but it is what it is.
That being the case, though, I think when NT goes off on the vile, racist, misogyny of Trump voters, who are so far beneath him as to not merit any effort whatsoever to understand or engage with, I can't help wondering whether that's all just performative, or whether he carves out a special exception for a few Trump voters he likes personally.
If I really, truly believed everything he says about Trump voters, I would not be able to convince myself that celaw or anyone else is an exception. I might be sad about it, but I wouldn't just pretend that when I say "All those people are evil," it's understood that I mean "Except you. I'm not talking about you."
And who said you had to believe anything I said about anything? What I say about Trump voters is my truth and it works for me. It is not a requirement to think as I do to be considered a part of my circle of friends. It seems to tweak something in your spine, Amadan when I make sweeping, blanket statements. Perhaps your learning tells you doing so is simplistic and generalizing and stigmatizing an entire group for the bad behavior of a few. Well, that shit has been going on for centuries and when Black people are stigmatized, it only takes one person to stigmatize an entire race. Everyone who voted for Trump does not think as he does or support what he does, but everyone who voted for Trump shares responsibility for what he says and does. Sometimes when you make a decision you gotta take the bad along with the good and with Trump there's a whole lot of bad. There's nothing controversial or confusing about that. I don't differentiate, though. Yes, you do. You proceed to differentiate below. Right, which differentiates celaw from the mouth-breathing zombies, yes? And how is that different from what NT has said? You claim there are different categories, and yet, NT is incapable of having his own categories, or something, I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean that once a poster condemns or otherwise mocks Trump voters, he can never, ever give props or have a friendship with a poster who voted for Trump without being called out on it, then.... I disagree. I tried to make a point of this in my post. And I don't think NT is alone in this tendency. I think every single one of us here probably do this to some extent. Christine stated it better than I could myself. Yes, you do. You proceed to differentiate below. You're misunderstanding me, or I was unclear. I meant if I make a broad statement about a class of people, I don't differentiate between "Class X" and "Individual who happens to be Class X except I know them personally." If it's true of everyone in class X, it's true of the Xs I know personally.
Which is why I try to avoid making absolute statements about classes of people. To me, saying "Trump voters are all racist, misogynist zombies - except celaw" does not make sense. Either there are some Trump voters besides celaw who are not all those things, or celaw is all those things too. You're misunderstanding me, or I was unclear. I meant if I make a broad statement about a class of people, I don't differentiate between "Class X" and "Individual who happens to be Class X except I know them personally." If it's true of everyone in class X, it's true of the Xs I know personally. Nighttimer mentioned Trump supporters he knew that were embarrassed by some of the things Trump has said. You criticized those supporters in your response (knowingly drinking poisoned koolaid is no better than ignorantly drinking it). You then made a bizarre statement about drinking koolaid versus "being like celaw." So you essentially said what NT said, before he said it and before you called him out for saying it. I'm not following you at all. NT "made a broad statement" about the Trump supporters who show up at his rallies and cheer (e.g.) his mockery of Dr. Ford. You made it a point of contention that NT differentiates between those Trump rally attendees and celaw. Seriously, go back and read the exchanges again. Except NT did not make this claim, so you've strung up a strawman. If you avoid making absolute statements about classes of people what is " Either there are some Trump voters besides celaw who are not all those things, or celaw is all those things too" but an absolute (and false) choice? If what I say makes no sense to you, that problem's not mine. I've explained my reasoning and I'm not going to keep explaining it to you, Amadan. Just say you disagree with it and move the fuck on. It's not like this to-and-fro has anything to do with Kavanaugh. It's only the latest edition of " Stuff Nighttimer Sez That I Don't Get" and it's a tiresome, tedious, derail. Nighttimer mentioned Trump supporters he knew that were embarrassed by some of the things Trump has said. You criticized those supporters in your response (knowingly drinking poisoned koolaid is no better than ignorantly drinking it). You then made a bizarre statement about drinking koolaid versus "being like celaw." So you essentially said what NT said, before he said it and before you called him out for saying it. I'm not following you at all. NT "made a broad statement" about the Trump supporters who show up at his rallies and cheer (e.g.) his mockery of Dr. Ford. You made it a point of contention that NT differentiates between those Trump rally attendees and celaw. Seriously, go back and read the exchanges again. Except NT did not make this claim, so you've strung up a strawman. No, you're not following me at all, but you seem really, tiresomely determined to fight over this. NT scoffed at the idea that I might want to understand why Trump voters vote the way they do. You can read it as a narrow statement specifically about Trump voters at the anti-Ford rally, but I didn't. You started off by saying it's always the way that we make exceptions in our hated "outgroup" for people we know. I don't. It that works for you, go for it. As a wise man said, I'm done with trying to understand Trump supporters. Why don't they understand ME?Trump is evil, stupid, and bigoted. Corrupt, crooked as a dog's back leg. His saving grace is he doesn't drink. If he did he'd be Brent Kavanaugh on steroids. Trump already has the impulse control of a 2-year-old brat on a sugar high. After slamming a six-pack of cheap, piss-warm beer, he'd be completely nuts. Oh, and speaking of stupid... Well, we know he wiped, but did he flush?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 5, 2018 11:34:45 GMT -5
Well, the tedious derail was started by Christine, who apparently thought it was very important.
There are a couple of different connotations of "understanding" someone. One implies empathy, but I meant it in the more intellectual sense of comprehending why they react the way they do - hence my using the term "What makes them tick."
I don't think anyone is obligated to grant (sympathetic) understanding to people they consider evil.
But yes, I personally find it problematic on both an intellectual and a moral level to classify an entire group of people as categorically evil. In some cases, it's a reasonable conclusion (e.g., Nazis). I am not convinced it is reasonable in the case of Trump voters, and yes, I am still baffled at being able to single out one individual who is the sole exception in all the world.
When someone sez stuff that I don't get, I usually ask for clarification. If they don't feel like clarifying, maybe they will respond with a hostile tirade, or maybe they will ignore me. Whatever.
(Also, please tell me that photo is real and not Photoshopped.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2018 11:36:09 GMT -5
The toilet paper photo is real. They really did let him go up the gangplank with toilet paper on his shoe.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 5, 2018 11:45:45 GMT -5
You really want to dig in on this "You are being unfair to NT and I must defend him." NT doesn't need me to defend him, that was not my purpose, and this is a very childish thing to say, imo. No, I don't. I swear to god I do not feel combative toward you, and I don't think any of my responses have been combative. We're just talking. He called the rally attendees vile. Outside of that, he said he didn't care to engage with any Trump supporters or to figure out how they tick, like you do. Why does that bother you? It's a valid thing to wonder. That's originally why I posted some thoughts. But I think this bit gets to the heart of it - you felt he was sneering at you originally and you've been defensive. I wasn't trying to pile on. A perfect opportunity for my favorite line: OH FFS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2018 11:50:14 GMT -5
MOD NOTE:This is my friendly early mod warning that I'm a post or two away from moving the incredibly tedious pointless derail out of this thread into a new one, which I then will lock. ETA: Unless, of course, robeiae is enjoying it more than I am and wants to overrule me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2018 13:17:05 GMT -5
Christine celawson Amadan nighttimer (Also robeiae ) I used my Modz Powerz to move this discussion out of the Kavanaugh thread. So far (so far...) I don't think it's out of hand or mod-slap worthy or anything, but I was finding it really, really distracting and annoying in the Kavanaugh thread, perhaps because I am obsessed with that topic at the moment and so much is going on with it. But I think c.e. was right; there's a topic worthy of discussion in here amidst the somewhat tedious interpersonal bickering, so have at it. At her request, I'm moving it and keeping it open. Anyway. Carry on, remember where the line is, step away from the keyboard if you need to, and have fun. Rob, I'm assuming you won't have a problem with my doing this.
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Oct 6, 2018 11:21:06 GMT -5
There are a hell of a lot of small groups that united in a binary choice that didn’t leave much room for nuance. It’s remarkable how commonly this occurs in first past the post election systems, and it’s a powerful antidote against rhetoric that promote FPTP systems.
In contrast, look at the Brexit referendum in the UK. It was the same thing. A hell of a lot of very different groups that coalesced into a pool supporting one side in a binary referendum. From authoritarian right to the anarchist left.
In both cases, people have tried to pick one or two characteristics from one or two of the groups, and spread it across the whole pool. In the UK, people who voted to leave the EU in protest against decades of being ignored politically just because they wanted more local investmet and because they wanted to be able to stay in a place they love are now characterised (partly by the leaders of their own side) as arch-globalists who want to remove all barriers to trade and borders.
They’re being marshalled under the same banner as wealthy Right-libertarians who want to end to UK:s national health service, and reduce or completely remove any regulation on health and safety, food security, and so on. There has not been one single poll, and many with opposite results, that support this path. But it’s the one the one that’s leading now. This is what FPTP elections and referendums bring, I think. It's the biggest argument for why referendums should be incredibly rare, and why elections should never be held under FPTP. I mean, come on, a country of 300 million or 30 million or 65 million can never be reduced to just two options.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2018 11:34:10 GMT -5
I'm married to a liberal, by the way. He wears Birkenstocks and he's driving his third electric car. He hates Trump with a passion and I will be frank here and say my voting for Trump put our marriage at risk. Of course I didn't realize it until after, but he seriously had a hard time with that. I'm not exaggerating. I've never felt that way with his politics, like it could hurt our relationship. And I honestly don't get that. But there it is. I cannot speak for your husband or anyone else, only myself. But for me: It's about what Trump supporters are willing to torch (and also to accept and to ignore) in order to gain a handful of pet policies. To me, those things -- those institutions and values -- are so much more important and fundamental. And unlike mere policies, one can't undo the damage with a mere election. Never, never, never would I support a Democratic version of Trump. If Kavanaugh had been a liberal justice with the exact same issues, I would have opposed his confirmation with the same passion. I know you (and Rob, Amadan, etc.) have wondered at my being more emotional about this stuff than I used to be. Well, that's because what I see being shredded is not merely policy -- it's institutions, principles, and values I revere. And I'm terribly afraid we'll never get them back. I can't help but get emotional about that. It grieves me to the heart. Oh, and I know you'll poo-poo and say that Trump isn't that bad, etc. (I wonder, by the way, if you've taken me up on my challenge to read his twitter feed every day...) But you say you don't get it and you want to understand it. And there it is, for me at least: it's that Trump supporters are willing to set fire to the common institutions and values I think both parties should hold paramount, all for the sake of a few policies. The fact that I think the policies themselves are wrong-headed is, by and large, actually secondary. ETA: And FWIW -- I was once engaged to a conservative; I still have conservative friends. I can still imagine dating a NeverTrump conservative -- I have great respect for a large number of them. With many, I feel the common ground is more important and fundamental than the policy differences. But the fact is, someone still supporting Trump -- to be honest, that would be a deal-breaker for me, dating-wise. I don't know what I'd do if I were already married to someone who was a Trump supporter, but I can say that, yes, I'd have a problem with it. The only way my Trump-enthusiast brother and I can remain civil is to avoid all discussion of politics and current events (and that's not just me, by the way--this is a mutual feeling). But my brother and I live across the state from each other. If I were married to someone, living in the same house, and he was all excited and happy over Trump -- well, I think it would be a problem. I do not, for the record, have that same problem with someone who voted Evan McMullin or Gary Johnson. It's not a matter of hating Trump supporters -- I certainly don't hate my brother. But relationship-wise, for me, it's just huge. I don't think you necessarily need to vote for the same people or support identical policies. But I do think you need to share the fundamental values that matter most to you. The stuff I care about may not be fundamental for everyone (it isn't, apparently, for my brother's wife, who isn't particularly political and can simply ignore him), but it is for me. ETA: And yes, there are always some compromises. No candidate is perfect. But what we have here is not someone who is imperfect. What we have is someone who is the embodiment of the seven deadly sins, and as far as I can see, has no redeeming character traits or indeed, any sincere values, which is why he flips on issues at the turn of a dime. He lies multiple times every day, flagrantly so, and says horrifying, divisive, deliberately inflammatory things. He does his damndest to undermine the First Amendment, our law enforcement agencies, and the independence of our judicial branch, to alienate our allies, to kiss up to dictators. The racists and demagogues of the world are emboldened by him. Imagine if you will that Hillary Clinton did all of those things -- had Trump's twitter feed, except, e.g., she was pro-choice, purported to support liberal tax policies and had Obama's foreign policy and immigration policy. But she tweeted out multiple egregious lies every single day, and threw out baseless, unsupported allegations against her political antagonists. Let's say that she refused to release her tax returns, despite the fact that all past candidates had done so as a matter of principle and many credible questions about her financial dealings existed. Let's say that the Russians supported her candidacy and had released a ton of propaganda to support it and undermine the Republican candidate in swing states, and then it turned out that she and her administration had all kinds of mysterious dealings with Russians that they "forgot" about until the press exposed them. Let's say that she fired an FBI director who was looking into that issue, and then, after a special prosecutor was appointed from her own party to examine into it, proceeded to do everything she could to undermine and end that investigation. Let's say she railed against that investigation and the special counsel and law enforcement agencies every day. Let's say she nominated a liberal Supreme Court justice with exactly the allegations Kavanaugh had against him, the same financial questions hovering over him, and that the Democrats refused to release a huge portion of the candidates record. Let's say that candidate lied repeatedly throughout the confirmation hearing. Let's say he lost his temper and vowed that "what goes around would come around" for Republicans, who were just out to get him because they were upset about Trump losing the election. Despite all of that, the Democratic Senators still pushed that candidate into the Supreme Court -- then they and the Clinton administration proceeded to gloat and make jokes about abortion to celebrate. And your husband was good with all that, defending not only the policies he liked (and you didn't), but also either defending or else pretty much ignoring or pooh-poohing the other stuff, saying it was minor noise at most and really didn't matter. Anyway, it was all worth it for the awesome huge extra taxes you were paying and the fantastic new abortion clinics! Invert everything about Trump that we unfair anti-Trumpers are always bitching about, and apply them to President Hillary Clinton. Imagine that it was not only policies being enacted that you felt were bad, but also that the person enacting them was doing all of that, and more like it. Then imagine your husband was always telling you how awesome everything was and how unreasonable, biased, and unfair you were being in always criticizing her. Who knows, maybe that would be fine with you. And it may not be the place your husband is coming from. But it's where I'd be coming from, and to be honest, I wouldn't be okay with it.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Oct 7, 2018 17:03:30 GMT -5
Donald Trump proves the wisdom of H. L. Mencken, who almost 100 years ago reinforced max's point about FPTP societal suicides.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Oct 7, 2018 18:52:00 GMT -5
I just want you all to know that I'm reading this thread closely, and I appreciate the thoughtful responses. Cass, I wanted to respond to yours right now, but I've been in San Diego this weekend for a recruiting visit to the college my daughter wants to play volleyball at, and I just got home a little while ago, and I haven't had much time at all to polish my talks for Tuesday. After Tuesday, I will have more time to respond thoughtfully. In the meantime, I will leave you with a Tweet by the senior New York Magazine art critic. He has 517K followers:
See, in my world of close-knit Italian extended family, family with different political views do one of two things -- they have respectful but candid discussions about the issues, preferably at a dining table with delicious food and young ones listening and learning like I did as a kid; or if they can't be civil, they avoid politics (like I and my husband have agreed to do with each other which is why I spend time here since I cannot do it at home). Shunning family for politics? I seriously cannot wrap my head around this. Our country, because of its government structure and our Constitution, can withstand Presidents who act like jerks, and it can weather the storm of policy changes which go one way for a time, then after elections, correct to go a different way for a time. And we survive, learn a few hard lessons, try to do better. It's just not worth missing out on the love and good times and support and strength and comfort a close-knit caring family can provide, in a lifetime that is always much too short and sadly short-sighted. Not worth it at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2018 19:09:08 GMT -5
I'm not shunning my brother -- but my brother and I find that for family peace, we really have to leave politics out of the mix. It's a bit of a rocky personality mix to begin with, as he and I are polar opposites in just about every possible way, but yeah, it's gotten harder since 2016. (My dad's death factors in, too, but that's another story. Dad was the family glue. He's sorely missed in so many ways.) To note, my brother's views are waayy Trumpier than yours, c.e. I know you don't actually like it when Trump says awful stuff. Alas, my brother does. I sometimes think one of us got switched in the cradle. On this last visit a couple weeks ago, my brother started to bring up immigration. Now, he's totally happy about Trump's immigration policies, and, well, you all know my feelings on those...there could be no worse topic for us to discuss. I reminded him that I'd spent my birthday marching to protest Trump's family separation policy and it would surely end in a fight if he insisted on talking about it. He clammed up right away. He didn't used to do that -- he'd keep pushing and pushing -- but I think he's figured out that it's just not worth it. And then, he now has some incentive beyond my asking him to do so. His eldest two daughters, now in their teens, are wholeheartedly in Aunt Cass's camp on this stuff. (So is his wife, but she just rolls her eyes and ignores it. His eldest daughter, age 15, is another story!) The more he pushes me into responding, the more my voiced viewpoints encourage his daughters in theirs, and he doesn't want that. (Of course, his daughters are going to make up their own minds, as kids do. But I think the extremeness of my brother's views helps push them towards their mom and me.) We both really like cooking, as does daughter number two (age 13), so that's actually something we can discuss with zero friction. When things look rocky, I turn the conversation to food. ETA: But I have to say this. If my brother HADN"T learned to leave well enough alone for family peace, it would be very difficult indeed. Unfortunately, I really struggle with a lot of his beliefs. He's good with the family separation policy. He's all for banning Muslims. I could go on, but you get the idea. He's all for the stuff that I hate the most. I find a lot of his views bigoted. He says stuff that would make me block him on Twitter. (As a matter of fact, it was partly because of him that I left Facebook years ago. I recently rejoined, but have not friended him, nor him me. He used to come on my wall and have huge ugly fights with my friends. I just couldn't deal.) What can I say. He's my brother, and in my way, I love him. He's family. But I can't hear him say that stuff without calling him out on it, even though it does no good at all. I haven't made a dent in our entire lives. If he kept insisting on saying that kind of stuff in front of me, I'd have to keep walking out, right after I blew my stack. I could let him go on and on about tax policy, but not stuff I just find downright repugnant.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Oct 7, 2018 20:07:03 GMT -5
You're right -- I DON'T like it when Trump says awful stuff. I cringed and felt very badly for Dr Ford when Trump said that stuff at the rally. She didn't deserve that, and he shouldn't have said it. Sometimes you and I, Cass, disagree on what is awful, though. I don't mind much of the time when Trump calls out the news media. (When they deserve it, of course)
|
|