Do you mean - why don’t Trump supporters feel heart-appealed about kids in cages, Nazis marching, etc. etc.?
Because - not to make this sound like circular logic, but sometimes circular is all there is - such things don’t bother them. (My best guess.)
So, it is not the heart that we should appeal to, but the amygdala.
Yep…
What “personal attacks”? I was critiquing the ideas and arguments that you promote on these boards—which is exactly the sort of critique you say we should be engaging in—not your intelligence or your personality or your hygiene or appearance or anything at all about you as an individual apart from your ideological arguments.
Yes, and that’s the context in which you voluntarily bragged to us that you’re unpopular on right-wing boards. The clear implication was that you’re unpopular on right-wing boards because you criticize their stupid name-calling of Democrats.
Now that it’s been pointed out to you that that kinda makes the right-wing boards look bad, though, you’re backtracking.
I repeat: On what grounds do you consider that my criticizing your specific arguments and positions constitutes in any way “going after you personally”?
Which is what I did, by noting that you’re unpopular here (a claim that you yourself were the one to bring up, so I assume that you’re not objecting merely to the “being called unpopular” part) on the basis of the substance of your flawed arguments and ideological positions.
You’re the one who seems to be having trouble separating criticism of a poster from criticism of the poster’s ideas and arguments.
@Sam_Stone, I don’t believe @Velocity is representative of the above quoted positions of Trump supporters. But how should we respond to apparent disregard for human life, and implicit support of racism? Is there even a common ground from which to approach this?
I’m asking naive questions because I’m completely out of ideas of how to approach such, erm… misguided… right wing positions that don’t offend supporters of same.
At the risk of both-sides-ism, in many regards, the thinking/feeling component of the left and right is usually the same, just flipped. And each side tends to project and believe that somehow the other side feels bad about what they themselves feel bad.
For instance - a pro-lifer could have asked, “don’t you pro-choicers have feelings about the 1 million fetuses aborted every year? How do you sleep at night?” And the pro-choicer could probably reply, with a shrug, in completely sincere honesty, “It doesn’t bother me one bit.”
Except that’s not what most pro-choice supporters think at all. They are not callous about abortion but they also consider the other life in question. The life of the woman and her right to choose.
That’s not even mentioning the shocking lack of interest pro-lifers show in the life of the child and mother after she gives birth.
Sorry… how should I approach this subject with a pro-life supporter without hurting their feelings?
I also think that Sam’s prescription for just separating workplace and non-workplace ideological expressions is not entirely workable by US constitutional principles:
As this article explains, First Amendment protections don’t apply to non-governmental entities such as private employers. If we want employers to “have no right to fire you for your political activities outside of the workplace”, we are going to have to make very substantial changes to employment law.
And where do we draw the line in such changes? Employers frequently turn down job applicants who’ve ever been arrested, even if they weren’t charged or convicted. Should that still be allowable? How about if the applicant was arrested for civil disobedience at a political protest? Doesn’t that fall afoul of the prohibition on punishing workers for political activities outside of the workplace?
Speaking as a diehard ACLU member, I’m all in favor of civil liberties and worker’s rights and all that good stuff. But if we want to impose the kind of severe restrictions on the ability of employers to base employment decisions on non-workplace behavior that Sam’s talking about, we’re going to have to substantially beef up collective bargaining rights for workers. It’s not liberals who are going to be hollering in outrage at the prospect of such legislation.
what’s scary is this is validation that the public want fascism and white nationalism. it’s not a fluke and now the gop will go full boat into fascism without hiding it.
were going to end up like Poland.
edit: well not you, I think you’re Canadian.
Because he had his thugs manhandle peaceful protestors so he could get a photo op in front of a church, just as Jesus would have done.
There are plenty of pro choicers who are quick to label anyone against full abortions to be misogynist and part of the patriarchy. It’s not as bad as being called a murderer but it doesn’t help.
The only thing the party can do there is try to get their message out and be careful who they lend their support to.
That’s difficult. Even in science it’s more honoured in theory than practice - scientists most often disprove each other’s theories. Do you know what drew him to those beliefs in the first place? (And why did you turn out so differently?)
That last part does make it worse… do people like this see any media outside their bubble? Suppose the Democrats changed their message, would they know?
This is always gonna be the case, unfortunately. And what about the CHOP? That was real, right?
They’ve been in charge of the lower house for two years. I know the Republicans would probably block it, but have they tried doing any of this stuff? (I forgot Obama started the kids in cages thing, I just meant find a non-cruel way to reduce illegal immigration.)
From what I’ve seen the right-wing press is usually highlighting stuff AOC and other less mainstream but still popular politicians do and say. It’s all about tribalism; if part of the tribe supports something then the leadership is considered to represent that too.
Trump was a joke candidate in 2016, who only got in because he was running against Hilary Clinton. Since then, people have had a chance to compare the reality of Trump against the fears of 2016.
You don’t like Trump? OK.
You now think he’s worse than what you thought in 2016? OK.
You think he’s worse now than what you said about him in 2016? Disagree with you on that one.
Until the USA invades Canada for our water and maybe oil. And maybe maple syrup. Do Americans like maple syrup?
You can hardly buy real maple syrup anymore. It’s now called “Table Syrup” made with corn syrup and artificial flavors. The real thing is a lot more expensive.
But seriously, Donnie has support of 30% of US Muslims? Seriously? That’s kind of like Hitler doing well with the Jewish vote.
I now feel worse for America. Fake president. Fake maple syrup. What is the world coming to? Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the Americans?
This election has been perplexing. I have read that a lot of Trump voters outside of his base voted based on a fear of the riots. The other thing I read is there was more confidence in Biden on COVID, and Trump on the economy, and the economy trumps (ha!) all. It really is always the economy. People fear not having a job more than anything else.
I do think that when the final analysis comes in that we’ll find that “Defund the Police” was a surprisingly effective cudgel for Republicans. Sure Biden made some effort to distance himself from it, and supporters tried to explain that what it really meant was shifting some resources from policing to social support services, but the message voters hear is right there in the slogan.
In Texas, Governor Abbott and the state Republican party made it a centerpiece of their messaging after the Austin city council voted to cut the police budget by a third. Abbott threatened to take over the Austin police department. I think a lot of voters who are sympathetic to police reform consider big cuts to policing to be going too far, and Republicans were effective making the case that’s the direction that Democrats are going or want to go.
Precisely what I’m getting at. Sure, we can continue claiming that ‘both sides’ are living in a bubble. But that’s not even close to being true. One side still relies on factual information while the other has embraced QAnon. How do we talk to that side when it sounds and behaves like this guy: BBQ Beer Freedom? How do we bridge the gap with people who listen, believe and support a candidate to the tune of 70M votes, when he has demonstrated over the past 5 years that he is an incompetent, belligerent, pathological liar?
Now, @Sam_Stone says we need to speak to the issues and avoid insults. But how can we when we can’t even agree on the fundamental truth as a starting point? A frequent conservative poster in the election thread was presented with evidence about the Walk-Away Movement, he dismissed it because it was ‘left-wing propaganda’. Now, it seemed clear to me that he spend virtually no time looking through the linked references, most of which were wikipedia based. He just angrily dismissed it and walked off in huff, insisting he was right without a single shred of evidence. Where and how do we even begin a conversation with him?