Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-14-2016, 11:00 PM
Crisstti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 17

The arrogance of the left-wing


It's one of the most unappealing aspects of it, and it's been in full display with the whole elections thing, including on this fórum... so many people are so completely certain they are right and so whoever disagrees with them is evil, fascist, racist, homophobe, or at the very least, an idiot.

Not even considering the possibility that they might themselves, you know, be wrong.

Watched a short video someone posted on Twitter the other day about just this, and it was so spot on: the left refuses to engage in debate. They just label and insult.

Not to mention the absurd alarmism, talk of a nuclear war and what not... seems to many democracy is fine as long as their side wins. And free speech exists only for the "right" ideas.

This kind of attitude only helps the likes of Trump win popularity.
  #2  
Old 11-14-2016, 11:23 PM
Locrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Valley Village, CA
Posts: 4,395
I changed the word "left" to "right" in your OP and it made sense.

But I'll bite: Talking politics with a BernieBro and you're pretty much right. It's all about him and nothing about politics.
  #3  
Old 11-14-2016, 11:34 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crisstti View Post
Not to mention the absurd alarmism, talk of a nuclear war and what not... seems to many democracy is fine as long as their side wins.
Whatever else you want to poke liberals over, the alarmism over nuclear war is real. Trump is the only president in history to question whether he would honor Article 5 of NATO, because he "doesn't want to tell Putin what the US would do" if Russia attacked an ally. Except, the entire point of Article 5 is to ensure that Putin knows *exactly* what the US would do.

Article 5 prevents misunderstandings and nuclear escalations, and Trump has decided it needs some kind of mystery suspense treatment. This is incredibly dangerous and unprecedented. I'm guessing your best response is "eh, never happen", ignoring the dangerous moves Russia has been testing the past few years.

I'm trying not to sound like I'm talking down right now, but it's hard to hear that Trump supporters don't understand basic concepts that could get us all killed.
  #4  
Old 11-14-2016, 11:44 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crisstti View Post
Not even considering the possibility that they might themselves, you know, be wrong.
I considered it.

Turned out I was right after all.
  #5  
Old 11-15-2016, 12:00 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,837
I think one reason for this arrogance (which, of course, many on the political right also display, but this thread is about the left) is because, despite all the recent philosophical fads about solipsism and "there is no objective truth or morality", people still, overwhelmingly, by and large, do believe that objective truth exists and that a moral right and moral wrong still exist.

Therefore liberals and leftists, for the most part, are driven by a strong sense of moral right/wrong and desire for "truth" as they see it to be upheld and furthered. Same is true for many right-wingers, but the reason I think left-wingers are more arrogant these days is because they have greater numbers and that, in the near future, the trends favor them (the political left will likely only continue to grow in strength in the decades ahead, and has already been growing for decades.)

Both right-wingers and left-wingers believe in a 1+1 = 2 framework and ridicule anyone whom they perceive as believing that 1+1=3. But they also see things in such a way that their side is the 1+1=2 side and the other side is the 1+1=3 side.
  #6  
Old 11-15-2016, 12:27 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I think one reason for this arrogance (which, of course, many on the political right also display, but this thread is about the left) is because, despite all the recent philosophical fads about solipsism and "there is no objective truth or morality", people still, overwhelmingly, by and large, do believe that objective truth exists and that a moral right and moral wrong still exist.

Therefore liberals and leftists, for the most part, are driven by a strong sense of moral right/wrong and desire for "truth" as they see it to be upheld and furthered. Same is true for many right-wingers, but the reason I think left-wingers are more arrogant these days is because they have greater numbers and that, in the near future, the trends favor them (the political left will likely only continue to grow in strength in the decades ahead, and has already been growing for decades.)

Both right-wingers and left-wingers believe in a 1+1 = 2 framework and ridicule anyone whom they perceive as believing that 1+1=3. But they also see things in such a way that their side is the 1+1=2 side and the other side is the 1+1=3 side.
What are these so-called moral axioms?
  #7  
Old 11-15-2016, 12:45 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
What are these so-called moral axioms?
Typically broad, if not overwhelming, consensus among the political left that it is wrong to deny gay people a legally recognized marriage like heterosexual couples; that abortion should be available and legal for women who seek one, that there should not be discrimination against minorities insofar as it pertains to income, employment, admission (although many rightists and leftists alike think discrimination against minorities is OK or at least cannot be remedied in some personal relationships), etc., among many others.
  #8  
Old 11-15-2016, 12:52 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Typically broad, if not overwhelming, consensus among the political left that it is wrong to deny gay people a legally recognized marriage like heterosexual couples; that abortion should be available and legal for women who seek one, that there should not be discrimination against minorities insofar as it pertains to income, employment, admission (although many rightists and leftists alike think discrimination against minorities is OK or at least cannot be remedied in some personal relationships), etc., among many others.
Those are the actual axioms or derived positions from unspecified axioms?
  #9  
Old 11-15-2016, 12:55 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
At least there is no talk of secession.
  #10  
Old 11-15-2016, 01:00 AM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,892
Crisstti wrote: "so whoever disagrees with them is evil, fascist, racist, homophobe, or at the very least, an idiot."

These are not mutually exclusive.
  #11  
Old 11-15-2016, 01:18 AM
elucidator is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,217
If only we would follow the shining example of civility and polite discourse that is the very essence of the Donald! Someone who, as my grandmother used to say, wouldn't say "Shit!" if they suddenly found out they had just taken a spoonful of it.
  #12  
Old 11-15-2016, 01:28 AM
marshmallow is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,764
I'm not sure what you mean. The left is all about moral relativism, remember? No firm moral foundations, left adrift in the wind without God to guide them. If people in Alabama want to teach creationism or ban gay marriage that's just their culture. To say that you know better than them is imperialism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
At least there is no talk of secession.
Those old Jesusland maps from 2004 could still work.

Last edited by marshmallow; 11-15-2016 at 01:29 AM.
  #13  
Old 11-15-2016, 02:06 AM
Budget Player Cadet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crisstti View Post
It's one of the most unappealing aspects of it, and it's been in full display with the whole elections thing, including on this fórum... so many people are so completely certain they are right and so whoever disagrees with them is evil, fascist, racist, homophobe, or at the very least, an idiot.

Not even considering the possibility that they might themselves, you know, be wrong.

Watched a short video someone posted on Twitter the other day about just this, and it was so spot on: the left refuses to engage in debate. They just label and insult.

Not to mention the absurd alarmism, talk of a nuclear war and what not... seems to many democracy is fine as long as their side wins. And free speech exists only for the "right" ideas.

This kind of attitude only helps the likes of Trump win popularity.
Oh, you want to debate the candidates on their merit? All right, be my guest. What good reason is there to vote for Trump? What will he achieve, policy-wise, that is a good idea for the country? And while you're at it, maybe you'd like to argue in support of the right-wing position on climate change. And the debt ceiling.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 11-15-2016 at 02:09 AM.
  #14  
Old 11-15-2016, 02:20 AM
Robot Arm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crisstti View Post
It's one of the most unappealing aspects of it, and it's been in full display with the whole elections thing, including on this fórum... so many people are so completely certain they are right and so whoever disagrees with them is evil, fascist, racist, homophobe, or at the very least, an idiot.

Not even considering the possibility that they might themselves, you know, be wrong.

Watched a short video someone posted on Twitter the other day about just this, and it was so spot on: the left refuses to engage in debate. They just label and insult.

Not to mention the absurd alarmism, talk of a nuclear war and what not... seems to many democracy is fine as long as their side wins. And free speech exists only for the "right" ideas.

This kind of attitude only helps the likes of Trump win popularity.
I heard a similar idea put forth on the radio this evening, that coastal liberals failed to understand middle America. And I can see some merit to that. But, it has to cut both ways; Trump voters have just as much of an obligation to try to understand and communicate with Democrats. I can tell you that I've spent more time in the midwest, the rust belt, and small towns than my dad has spent in big cities.

The left likes to label and insult, you say. "Ivory tower", "liberal elites", "lamestream media", "treasonous", "death panels", "usurper", "Kenyan", "founder of ISIS", "crooked Hillary", do any of those ring a bell?
  #15  
Old 11-15-2016, 11:01 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crisstti View Post
It's one of the most unappealing aspects of it, and it's been in full display with the whole elections thing, including on this fórum... so many people are so completely certain they are right and so whoever disagrees with them is evil, fascist, racist, homophobe, or at the very least, an idiot.

...
No, it's not the disagreement with me that makes them evil. Hell, I love a good debate when it makes sense.

It is the DISPLAY of fascist, racist, homophobic, and idiotic BEHAVIOR, followed by either the nonsensical defense of the indefensible or (what I'm seeing a lot of) the denial that it ever happened.
  #16  
Old 11-15-2016, 11:07 AM
Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,600
The fears of nuclear war are because Trump is a. Vengeful, emotionally fragile person who asked why we have nukes if we aren't going to use them.

Nobody to my knowledge was claiming Romney would lead to a nuclear exchange. Even under Bush this wasn't a concern.

People call Trump a fascist because he is an authoritarian nationalist.

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 11-15-2016 at 11:09 AM.
  #17  
Old 11-15-2016, 11:33 AM
Algher is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
At least there is no talk of secession.
Not sure if this is sarcasm, but there is at least a little buzz on social media about Cascadia (Oregon and Washington splitting off) and California CalExit:

http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/...m-10609366.php
  #18  
Old 11-15-2016, 11:39 AM
Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,600
Also, on the subject of liberal elitism there are a couple of factors. Maybe this isn't conductive to an actual debate but here is how I personally feel.

1. Truth is, ideally, more valid than lies.

2. Taking away the rights of the weak is worse than defending them.

Deep down almost all the claims of elitism against liberals come to those two points.

Creationism is not as valid as evolution. Claiming climate change is a hoax is not as valid as claiming the science is consistent. Claiming Obama is a Muslim is not as valid as claiming Trump is an authoritarian. Trump claiming the election is rigged based on zero evidence is not as valid as leftists claiming the elections is rigged due to Russian espionage, fbi interference and state level voter suppression efforts. Claiming Clinton is a liar because she lied about 26% of the time isn't as valid as calling Trump a liar for lying about 70% of the time according to politifact.

On to the second point,ehst would you have us say? Maybe insults are not conductive to debate but generally liberals are egalitarian and conservatives are not. How are liberals trying to take away the rights of conservatives? We haven't taken their guns away. But conservatives are trying to take away the right to vote, to make your own medical decisions, the right to marry, etc from people. If you look at us society, it is really only conservative who are trying to take away other people's rights. Someone please explain if or how that view is wrong.

The right has conspiracy theories about fema camps, gun roundups, a fantasy war on Christmas etc. The left has evidence of voter suppression, opposition to gay marriage, a real war on Islam, etc. The right has fantasies of being persecuted. The left has evidence of being persecuted. They are not the same.

Liberals can take it too far, shouting down people who point out actual facts about minority groups or vulnerable groups as bigots. Blacks commit more crimes in the US. Muslims in Europe commit more sex crimes. Poor people abuse and neglect their children more and have higher domestic violence rates. Non whites get more welfare per capita.

I think this is a mistake we make. In Europe the refusal of the left to admit that Muslim migrants are committing crimes, especially sex crimes, at higher rates is making people upset. The problem I guess the left has is that these facts can be used s to further oppress these groups. So we do about down people who point them out.

If we are wrong, please show us why. Many of us are more open minded than you give us credit for. Is it just that whenever we try to discuss issues with the right mostly we get conspiracy theories and misinformation.

Why is our elitism wrong? A lot of us feel our elitism us because our opinions are more moral and factually accurate than what we are given from the other side of the aisle. Why is that incorrect?

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 11-15-2016 at 11:40 AM.
  #19  
Old 11-15-2016, 11:45 AM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
The fears of nuclear war are because Trump is a. Vengeful, emotionally fragile person who asked why we have nukes if we aren't going to use them.

Nobody to my knowledge was claiming Romney would lead to a nuclear exchange. Even under Bush this wasn't a concern.

People call Trump a fascist because he is an authoritarian nationalist.
And he's willing to let Putin have his way with Russia's neighbors because he either 1) admires him, or 2) is in debt to him and his friends.

It is not "arrogance" to suggest Trump is wholly unqualified to be president. He talks only in vague soundbites and shows no evidence that he understands any of the country's problems, and certainly has no sane proposals to make anything better. He simply uses the "best words" to tell us he will do "so many great things" we'll actually get tired of "winning." What would you call someone who supports such a candidate other than an "idiot?"
  #20  
Old 11-15-2016, 11:54 AM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I think one reason for this arrogance (which, of course, many on the political right also display, but this thread is about the left) is because, despite all the recent philosophical fads about solipsism and "there is no objective truth or morality", people still, overwhelmingly, by and large, do believe that objective truth exists and that a moral right and moral wrong still exist.

Therefore liberals and leftists, for the most part, are driven by a strong sense of moral right/wrong and desire for "truth" as they see it to be upheld and furthered. Same is true for many right-wingers, but the reason I think left-wingers are more arrogant these days is because they have greater numbers and that, in the near future, the trends favor them (the political left will likely only continue to grow in strength in the decades ahead, and has already been growing for decades.)
But as you allude to in first paragraph, it's more striking that a lot of the left is so wrapped up in moralizing political issues ('we're the moral side, the right is the immoral side, end of discussion') because people on the left as a rule are less likely to believe in an absolute moral code that comes from somewhere beyond the individual. According to their more common view of morality, one would probably predict the right would emphasize morality more in claiming their political views were right (and to some degree of course they do). But nowadays the left does it more and on more issues IMO. It's constantly on display in this forum.

As to which side is 'destined' to dominate, left leaning people definitely need to rethink this. They have won on some issues, like gay marriage for example. On a political tactical basis they might hope the right keeps fighting that as a major issue, because most of the public has changed its mind* to the formerly 'left' view. But the evidence suggests the right will not mainly play along with this. How much is Trump an icon of opposition to gay marriage? (some lip service, but pretty clear IMO he doesn't actually care).

In politics the key issues evolve and change, and even the meaning of left of right does. Trump demonstrates that to those who actually listened to debate on the right in the primaries, or to the general election campaign. And now the Democratic Party might double down on a move further to the left. There's no destiny which says that's the path to dominance. Besides the presidency the record of the last several election cycles is big cumulative Democratic losses in House, Senate, governors, state legislators. More leftism is the solution to that? Maybe, but it's actually impossible to predict the 'inevitable' party. That would seem an obvious lesson to Democrats in the Obama era.

*which is one of the fascinating examples of leftish moralizing lately. Twenty years ago hardly anyone in the mainstream advocated for changing the definition of marriage to include two people of the same sex. Icons of the Democratic party did not. But now per many, it's *immoral* not to agree with this definition change. Where does such a moral code come from, which changes so quickly?

Last edited by Corry El; 11-15-2016 at 11:58 AM.
  #21  
Old 11-15-2016, 12:39 PM
elucidator is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,217
Twenty years is "quick"? What are you, three hundred and eighty years old?
  #22  
Old 11-15-2016, 11:07 PM
Crisstti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Also, on the subject of liberal elitism there are a couple of factors. Maybe this isn't conductive to an actual debate but here is how I personally feel.

1. Truth is, ideally, more valid than lies.

2. Taking away the rights of the weak is worse than defending them.

Deep down almost all the claims of elitism against liberals come to those two points.

Creationism is not as valid as evolution. Claiming climate change is a hoax is not as valid as claiming the science is consistent. Claiming Obama is a Muslim is not as valid as claiming Trump is an authoritarian. Trump claiming the election is rigged based on zero evidence is not as valid as leftists claiming the elections is rigged due to Russian espionage, fbi interference and state level voter suppression efforts. Claiming Clinton is a liar because she lied about 26% of the time isn't as valid as calling Trump a liar for lying about 70% of the time according to politifact.
I don't think those are really relevant issues?, they seem really just contingent. I'd say being in favor of gay marriage is as valid as being against it, being in favor of the right to own guns is as valid as being against it.

Quote:
On to the second point,ehst would you have us say? Maybe insults are not conductive to debate but generally liberals are egalitarian and conservatives are not. How are liberals trying to take away the rights of conservatives? We haven't taken their guns away. But conservatives are trying to take away the right to vote, to make your own medical decisions, the right to marry, etc from people. If you look at us society, it is really only conservative who are trying to take away other people's rights. Someone please explain if or how that view is wrong.

The right has conspiracy theories about fema camps, gun roundups, a fantasy war on Christmas etc. The left has evidence of voter suppression, opposition to gay marriage, a real war on Islam, etc. The right has fantasies of being persecuted. The left has evidence of being persecuted. They are not the same.
You know, something that made mean lean away from the left was precisely the whole voter ID laws discussion...

The left is against certain rights (if we want to call them that): guns ownership (yeah, they haven't taken away people's guns... but not because they wouldn't like to) and free speech, of the top of my head.

Of course theft has evidence of opposition to gay marriage, there are a lot of people who oppose it. But instead of using arguments, the left usually just shouts "homophobe!", that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. I for example am in favor of gay rights, marriage, etc., but I don't see why should it be an invalid opinion to think otherwise. I don' think the right to marry is a given fact beyond discussion. Plus if I'm right, surely I can find some actual arguments to use?.

Quote:
Liberals can take it too far, shouting down people who point out actual facts about minority groups or vulnerable groups as bigots. Blacks commit more crimes in the US. Muslims in Europe commit more sex crimes. Poor people abuse and neglect their children more and have higher domestic violence rates. Non whites get more welfare per capita.

I think this is a mistake we make. In Europe the refusal of the left to admit that Muslim migrants are committing crimes, especially sex crimes, at higher rates is making people upset. The problem I guess the left has is that these facts can be used s to further oppress these groups. So we do about down people who point them out.
This, definitely. Hell, in Germany the pólice and the press tried to hide the mass sexual attacks on New Year's eve. You (a general you) cannot just manipulate facts to get a desired outcome or avoid one perceived as negative. It's intelectually dishonest, and people do pick up on this. What ends up happening is that people like Le Pen grow in popularity, because they're the ones expressing concerns that mainstream politicians refuse to aknowledge.

Quote:
If we are wrong, please show us why. Many of us are more open minded than you give us credit for. Is it just that whenever we try to discuss issues with the right mostly we get conspiracy theories and misinformation.

Why is our elitism wrong? A lot of us feel our elitism us because our opinions are more moral and factually accurate than what we are given from the other side of the aisle. Why is that incorrect?
Many are more open minded, but not most imo. This attitude, this refusal to engage in debate, is wrong because it's arrogant and anti-democratic... and it's also wrong from a tactical point of view. Shouting down people who disagree isn't going to change anyone's opinión, even if it makes the one doing the shouting feel better about himself.

This is something I saw a lot when I was very involved with animal rights groups some years ago. Anyone who wasn't a vegetarian (hell, a vegan), was an idiot or an evil person. You know, I'm a vegetarian but I don't go around calling omnivores murderers.

PS: Sorry if this post was a little disjointed. Have barely slept and it's late.
  #23  
Old 11-15-2016, 11:13 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,483
I've lost track - which is the side that has bad ideas and which is the side that has bad people?
  #24  
Old 11-15-2016, 11:15 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,483
By the way, if the OP knows of a non-homophobic reason to oppose gay marriage, please share because I asked a few people on this board and never got one.
  #25  
Old 11-15-2016, 11:28 PM
Inbred Mm domesticus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,659
Is it arrogant to assume you know more than climate scientists, physicists, evolutionary biologists, geologists, paleontologists, etc. because you read (but probably didn't read) parts of the Bible?
  #26  
Old 11-15-2016, 11:42 PM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,154
Nope, this is a straw man getting trotted out a lot right now

There was no complacency among democrat supporters. Trump winning was "unthinkable" in the sense of someone with that temperament and (lack of) experience being president was hard to imagine, but very few people were actually saying Clinton had the election sewn up.

And it's not ignorance that makes me despise trump and what he stands for. I watch Fox news every day for example...I always like to get both sides of a story. It just happens that the Trump / Giuliani / Hannity side is based on lies, both wilful and of the "people are saying" variety.

But it works. This is what I've been saying in other threads: how well you can sell a factoid is now more important than whether it's true. Ideas are just click-bait.
  #27  
Old 11-16-2016, 12:05 AM
OriginalGangster is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 144
The election was a massive psy-op or troll job, depending on how you choose to look at it.

For instance, how many on the right, can openly admit that if Trump had "won" the popular but lost the electoral - that they wouldn't be upset?

Very few. Believe it or not, this data has been quantified & it's under 0.01%.
  #28  
Old 11-16-2016, 12:39 AM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
There was no complacency among democrat supporters.
Are you sure? In 2008, Obama won 69,456,897 votes. This go-around, Hillary won 60,981,118 (as of the current count) cite. That is one helluva difference. Are you sure Democrats were not complacent, or maybe not inspired, having their rightful nomination of Bernie snatched away from them by a hostile Establishment?
  #29  
Old 11-16-2016, 02:08 AM
voltaire's Avatar
voltaire is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 6,188
Only "rightful nomination" that got snatched away was Biden's.
  #30  
Old 11-16-2016, 03:35 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
Are you sure? In 2008, Obama won 69,456,897 votes. This go-around, Hillary won 60,981,118 (as of the current count) cite. That is one helluva difference. Are you sure Democrats were not complacent, or maybe not inspired, having their rightful nomination of Bernie snatched away from them by a hostile Establishment?
I was saying there is no evidence of complacency and dropping a lot of votes doesn't in itself prove otherwise, especially in an election with lower turnout overall.

I was mostly railing against the post-hoc "we thought we had it in the bag!" that I'm hearing in so many places. I read a lot of pre-election predictions and I don't recall anyone putting it like that. It was always at risk and that's why we were so panicked.
There was a point where Trump's poll numbers slumped and the chance of Hillary getting it was put as high as 85%, but that's the nature of probabilities, they can change as circumstances (and our knowledge) changes.
  #31  
Old 11-16-2016, 05:05 AM
Budget Player Cadet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crisstti View Post
I don't think those are really relevant issues?
Climate change is likely to cause hundreds of thousands of additional deaths per year in the coming decades. That's relevant. Our students being taught religious dogma instead of the science they need to understand medicine - that's relevant. Consistent failures of public perception leading to a great many people voting for an unqualified, dishonest con man - that's definitely relevant.

Quote:
, they seem really just contingent. I'd say being in favor of gay marriage is as valid as being against it, being in favor of the right to own guns is as valid as being against it.
Reasons for gay marriage: expanding the institution of marriage, with its myriad social and financial benefits, to include a group of people formerly refused access without good reason
Reasons against gay marriage: ...I got nothing. Do you have a good reason? The religious right kept fishing for a decent one in Obergfell and they had nothing.

Reasons for gun laws: personal freedom, potential empirical data regarding self-defense and protection
Reasons against gun laws: potential empirical data regarding gun violence and death

I'm not going to disagree with you on gun laws. I feel like this is an issue the democrats should just drop and give up. It's not worth losing such a huge chunk of dedicated single-issue voters - even if those voters are essentially nutbags - and it's never going to happen.

Quote:
You know, something that made mean lean away from the left was precisely the whole voter ID laws discussion...
Voter disenfranchisement is considerably more common than in-person impersonation voter fraud, the only kind of voter fraud that voter ID laws cover. The latter almost never happens. The former happens all the time. Voter ID laws are a bad idea that try to fix a fake problem by making it that much harder for people, mostly young, old, minorities, and the very poor, to vote. Hell, in North Carolina we just got a blatant example of how racist these laws can be - but really, the goal is just to depress turnout for the democrats. Even if this malicious intent weren't obvious from how the laws are designed and the statements of various republican politicians, this is, once again, a case where the republican view is not evidence-based, does not comport to the facts, and does more harm than good. Pointing that out does not count as "elitism" and should not be seen as such.


Quote:
The left is against certain rights (if we want to call them that): guns ownership (yeah, they haven't taken away people's guns... but not because they wouldn't like to) and free speech, of the top of my head.
Trump campaigned on a promise to open up libel laws and make it easier to sue the press, and has himself abused SLAPP lawsuits constantly, to the point where the American Bar Association commisioned an article on it... and demanded it be heavily revised so that Trump wouldn't try to sue them! Can you name any "leftist" policy of the past decade that's remotely as anti-free-speech? I wasn't aware of it.
  #32  
Old 11-16-2016, 06:13 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,483
So what happens if the president is declared a vexatious litigant?
  #33  
Old 11-16-2016, 08:56 AM
Bridget Burke is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 9,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
So what happens if the president is declared a vexatious litigant?
How dare you use those arrogant, elitist, multisyllabic words?
  #34  
Old 11-16-2016, 10:19 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,065
Right now, this lefty would like something to feel arrogant about, rather than continuing to feel poleaxed.
  #35  
Old 11-16-2016, 10:27 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Both right-wingers and left-wingers believe in a 1+1 = 2 framework and ridicule anyone whom they perceive as believing that 1+1=3. But they also see things in such a way that their side is the 1+1=2 side and the other side is the 1+1=3 side.
This may be so. But for instance, the available evidence overwhelmingly says that global warming is real. One party accepts that, the other rejects it. One party believes that big tax cuts for the rich will pay for themselves, the other doesn't. Again, the evidence is all on one side. One party believes that abstinence education is the best way to prevent teen pregnancy; the other believes that sex education and access to birth control works considerably better. Again, the evidence is with the latter side. The Republican Speaker of the House just said Obamacare has made Medicare less sustainable, when the exact opposite is true: the Medicare trust fund's life has been extended by 11 years since the passage of Obamacare. And so on and so forth.

This isn't a #bothsidesdoit thing. One side consistently denies reality, the other is trying to address it as it exists.
  #36  
Old 11-16-2016, 01:40 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
So what happens if the president is declared a vexatious litigant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridget Burke View Post
How dare you use those arrogant, elitist, multisyllabic words?
I also wish I didn't have to use "president" regarding Trump, but the voters have spoken.

Last edited by Bryan Ekers; 11-16-2016 at 01:40 PM.
  #37  
Old 11-16-2016, 04:15 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by voltaire View Post
Only "rightful nomination" that got snatched away was Biden's.
How is that? He did not even run.
  #38  
Old 11-16-2016, 05:25 PM
Crisstti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
Nope, this is a straw man getting trotted out a lot right now

There was no complacency among democrat supporters. Trump winning was "unthinkable" in the sense of someone with that temperament and (lack of) experience being president was hard to imagine, but very few people were actually saying Clinton had the election sewn up.

And it's not ignorance that makes me despise trump and what he stands for. I watch Fox news every day for example...I always like to get both sides of a story. It just happens that the Trump / Giuliani / Hannity side is based on lies, both wilful and of the "people are saying" variety.

But it works. This is what I've been saying in other threads: how well you can sell a factoid is now more important than whether it's true. Ideas are just click-bait.
How it based on lies?, what would you say are his campaign main points?, Illegal immigration, Islamic terrorism...?
  #39  
Old 11-16-2016, 07:19 PM
Caldazar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Oh, you want to debate the candidates on their merit? All right, be my guest. What good reason is there to vote for Trump? What will he achieve, policy-wise, that is a good idea for the country? And while you're at it, maybe you'd like to argue in support of the right-wing position on climate change. And the debt ceiling.
Seriously? I mean, I tend to support a number of "leftist" positions generally, but this type of attitude is really annoying. You cannot seriously say you can't understand the "right-wing" on these issue. You may not agree with the positions and in a number of cases, the positions may in fact be rationally bankrupt, but you seriously don't know the answers to your questions? That's like saying you don't understand why Celine Dion is so popular because you think her music sucks.

Trump: Trump's message resonates and makes people feel good about themselves. Clinton's message does not resonate and does not make people feel good about themselves. Trump will, likely, achieve nothing that benefits the poorer/working classes with whom his message resonates because his policy positions, if he even really has any, are nonsense. But do you seriously believe that a majority of his supporters are that stupid and don't know that he's full of it? Of course they are aware; it's been documented in newspapers and other media that they are quite aware. But if your choices are between a liar who makes you feel good for a little while, and a (relatively) truthful establishment politician that will do little to help you and doesn't make you feel good, then the choice makes sense. Michael Moore had it right; you vote Trump because then you get to feel good for one day before you have to go back to your misery.

Climate Change: Climate change will cause temperatures and sea levels to rise to varying degrees, depending on which climate change model turns out to be most accurate. This will gradually cause human suffering, and the suffering will get worse over time. Combating climate change now will cost resources and retard economic growth, which will cause human suffering now. People try to avoid unpleasant things for as long as possible. Outright denial is an extension of this, a way to deceive oneself into avoiding unpleasant realities.

Debt Ceiling: Taking on increasing debt increases risk of future financial instability. So you should not take on increasing debt unless it is strongly justified, to minimize your future risk. And you should discourage taking on additional debt unless strongly justified, by the same token. And yes, the "right-wing" are skillful liars who squawk about controlling debt and don't mean a damn word of it.

The arrogance, if that's even the correct word for it, is that human beings should somehow aspire to be highly rational beings who don't let their emotions get in the way, and that those who hold this view do not allow themselves to try to extend empathy and understanding towards others who don't share this goal. Because of course, if you don't share the view that logic and rationality are the greatest of virtues, there must be something wrong with you.

This was Clinton's arrogance, in a nutshell. Objectively, she was the more qualified, between her and Trump. Why are people so stupid? "Why aren't I 50 points ahead?" Because she, and I would argue some people here, have a fundamental misunderstanding of how human beings work. And they are too damn arrogant to correct that misunderstanding and modify their behavior in order to influence others in an effective manner. It's easier just to call them stupid and write them off as hopeless.
  #40  
Old 11-16-2016, 07:21 PM
Salvor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crisstti View Post
It's one of the most unappealing aspects of it, and it's been in full display with the whole elections thing, including on this fórum... so many people are so completely certain they are right and so whoever disagrees with them is evil, fascist, racist, homophobe, or at the very least, an idiot.

Not even considering the possibility that they might themselves, you know, be wrong.

Watched a short video someone posted on Twitter the other day about just this, and it was so spot on: the left refuses to engage in debate. They just label and insult.

Not to mention the absurd alarmism, talk of a nuclear war and what not... seems to many democracy is fine as long as their side wins. And free speech exists only for the "right" ideas.

This kind of attitude only helps the likes of Trump win popularity.
Hey Cristii, get out of your bubble and go read the comments of a breitbart article.
  #41  
Old 11-16-2016, 07:23 PM
Salvor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
At least there is no talk of secession.
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/....thumbnail.jpg


#CalExit for life !!!!!!!
  #42  
Old 11-16-2016, 07:35 PM
Salvor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by marshmallow View Post
I'm not sure what you mean. The left is all about moral relativism, remember? No firm moral foundations, left adrift in the wind without God to guide them. If people in Alabama want to teach creationism or ban gay marriage that's just their culture. To say that you know better than them is imperialism.



Those old Jesusland maps from 2004 could still work.

Yes and no. The far left believes in relativism but that is under assault by liberals. It's harder for us though, we do not get to rely on that sloppy and tattered crutch of

"Because God said so"

Which LITERALLY is the same justification for someone to help the needy or say... Saw an infidels head off. Well, my GOD said so so I guess I'd better oblige.

This is the ethics and morality of a SLAVE, not an autonomous moral agent, not someone who refuses to bend the knee like a DOG not a MAN.

So yes, it's harder, there is no universal standard of ethics, it IS relative on a cosmic scale, but we are not random cosmic creatures. We are humans, we have evolved over the eons with a common collection of intuitions and behavioral heuristics. There is variation to be sure, but most people are inside the line of SOME common themes. And when they are not, we have the outliers like psychopaths and sociopaths, where something is LITERALLY wrong with their brains (thanks god, so benevolent in his gifts to his children that he saddles them with moral intuitions that are the opposite of what he demands). Cultures emerged as more and more people gathered and in modern times our morality and ethics is a blend of how we were wired over thousands and millions of years by nature, and the cultural software that combines the two aspects into a whole.

This is the source of all ethics, religious or otherwise. And while there is no absolute standard, there are some standards that tend to lead to more human hapiness and flourishing than others, assuming we can agree on what those things are. And if we cannot, for example I do NOT consider being beheaded for not believing in Allah a good thing, then we can agree to disagree, with my side killing the other to rid the world of discordant moral codes that are incompatible so that my side wins and theirs does not.
  #43  
Old 11-16-2016, 07:45 PM
Count Blucher is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Near Baroni&Kelly's Jail.
Posts: 13,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crisstti View Post
It's one of the most unappealing aspects of it, and it's been in full display with the whole elections thing, including on this fórum... so many people are so completely certain they are right and so whoever disagrees with them is evil, fascist, racist, homophobe, or at the very least, an idiot.
We've been here for quite a while.
You're here for... Six whole posts.

So, which label are are you that you're trying to weasel out from under here...?

Last edited by Count Blucher; 11-16-2016 at 07:46 PM.
  #44  
Old 11-16-2016, 08:22 PM
elucidator is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salvor View Post
Hey Cristii, get out of your bubble and go read the comments of a breitbart article.
Without a warning? You don't even give out a warning?! What wrong with you? Be like you know somebody feeling pretty down, hard time dealing and you say "Here, try this guy Cormac McCarthy, cheer you right up!". Blows his brains out, its your damn fault!

Last edited by elucidator; 11-16-2016 at 08:23 PM.
  #45  
Old 11-16-2016, 09:04 PM
John DiFool's Avatar
John DiFool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 18,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caldazar View Post
The arrogance, if that's even the correct word for it, is that human beings should somehow aspire to be highly rational beings who don't let their emotions get in the way, and that those who hold this view do not allow themselves to try to extend empathy and understanding towards others who don't share this goal. Because of course, if you don't share the view that logic and rationality are the greatest of virtues, there must be something wrong with you.
Do you think that said attitude (highlighted by me) should NOT be one that we can teach all of our citizens, all of our children? One that we should, as a society, value, encourage, and foster? That we should just throw our hands up in the air and just meekly cowtow to our most base impulses? Allow propaganda, fear, hopelessly one-sided bias, and other lower complexes to dominate our thought, and thus our political (and other) outcomes?

So, why (and how) have some learned to turn the trick, while others haven't?

I for one DO think there is something wrong with you if you allow these lower impulses to control your life, choices, and destiny. It simply leads to a type of hapless nihilism, made all the more poignant when those who have embraced are unable to see the moral and intellectual emptiness of their positions.

[Note I personally do not think they are the "greatest" of virtues, but that is a topic for a completely different thread. They ARE superior to their counterparts I mentioned above.]

Last edited by John DiFool; 11-16-2016 at 09:05 PM.
  #46  
Old 11-16-2016, 09:09 PM
OriginalGangster is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 144
Outside of sociopaths, only a very small percent of people are rational. Herd mentality is simply too inborn of a trait, especially in low-average IQ, which is the majority, regardless of political alignment.
  #47  
Old 11-16-2016, 09:24 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
If only we would follow the shining example of civility and polite discourse that is the very essence of the Donald! Someone who, as my grandmother used to say, wouldn't say "Shit!" if they suddenly found out they had just taken a spoonful of it.
Well, we do have the shining example of The Donald on Twitter:

Quote:
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!
11:29 PM - 6 Nov 2012
Quote:
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us.
11:30 PM - 6 Nov 2012
Quote:
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!
11:33 PM - 6 Nov 2012
Quote:
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble...like never before.
11:39 PM - 6 Nov 2012
Quote:
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
11:45 PM - 6 Nov 2012
To say nothing of his eight years pretending that Obama was not a U.S. citizen.

And In case people forgot how peacefully people accepted Obama's election in ’08.

Last edited by tomndebb; 11-17-2016 at 01:37 AM.
  #48  
Old 11-16-2016, 09:49 PM
Caldazar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 840
Quote:
Originally Posted by John DiFool View Post
Do you think that said attitude (highlighted by me) should NOT be one that we can teach all of our citizens, all of our children? One that we should, as a society, value, encourage, and foster? That we should just throw our hands up in the air and just meekly cowtow to our most base impulses? Allow propaganda, fear, hopelessly one-sided bias, and other lower complexes to dominate our thought, and thus our political (and other) outcomes?

So, why (and how) have some learned to turn the trick, while others haven't?
"Greatest of virtues" was a poor choice of words on my part; I agree that "superior virtue" is probably a more moderate way to express the idea.

I simply don't believe it's possible to teach a large portion of a society to be reasonably strong rational thinkers, however you choose to define "reasonably strong". Rational thinking is very difficult, and being reliably good at it is a rather rare trait in my opinion. Even in my limited experience in structured "intellectual pursuits" (chess, math, science), this seems to be a difficult skill to cultivate among myself and my peers; it's just incredibly difficult to maintain the mental discipline required for any reasonable length of time (i.e. many minutes straight). Nevermind trying to walk around and live life generally as a rational being.

Yes, we should make the attempt to teach critical thinking, if only to arm people with another potential tool with which to try to understand the world and live in it. But I don't really expect much success, not because people are inherently stupid, but because it's just really difficult to develop the skill. So yes, I do think we're "stuck" following our "base impulses" to a large degree, and we should learn how to best navigate life under those limitations.
  #49  
Old 11-16-2016, 10:08 PM
Crisstti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
This may be so. But for instance, the available evidence overwhelmingly says that global warming is real. One party accepts that, the other rejects it. One party believes that big tax cuts for the rich will pay for themselves, the other doesn't. Again, the evidence is all on one side. One party believes that abstinence education is the best way to prevent teen pregnancy; the other believes that sex education and access to birth control works considerably better. Again, the evidence is with the latter side. The Republican Speaker of the House just said Obamacare has made Medicare less sustainable, when the exact opposite is true: the Medicare trust fund's life has been extended by 11 years since the passage of Obamacare. And so on and so forth.

This isn't a #bothsidesdoit thing. One side consistently denies reality, the other is trying to address it as it exists.
Well, this kinda post proves my point. You are just SO sure you're the ones who are right, that "reality" is on your side. Most things, my friend, aren't that simple at all. All the evidence isn't anywhere near as one sided on all those issues you mention as you say... and those aren't at all the only issues either. Abortion?, guns?, crime policies?, immigration?, terrorism?, free speech?.

Look, we all think we're right. We wouldn't hold an opinion about something to begin with, otherwise. But we all should accept the possibility that we just might, possibly, be wrong. We're not talking about issues as uncontested as the Earth being not being flat here.

The idea that your side (whochever side that is) has the uncontested REALITY is actually also very dangerous, for free speech and democracy itself.

Last edited by Crisstti; 11-16-2016 at 10:11 PM.
  #50  
Old 11-16-2016, 10:12 PM
Crisstti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
Well, we do have the shining example of The Donald on Twitter:


To say nothing of his eight years pretending that Obama was not a U.S. citizen.

And In case people forgot how peacefully people accepted Obama's election in ’08.
Is any of that worse than what the never Trump folks are saying and doing now?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017