True, listening, understanding, and empathizing aren’t the exact same thing as appeasing, but I am hard pressed to see a glimmer of light between them.
Feel free to stop reading my posts, then. No one forces you to other than yourself.
If Scott Farkus’s dog got run over by a car as he watched, you’d understand his tears and anger, right?
Right up to the point where he called for the jailing of Clinton for getting his dog run over.
Got no empathy for insanity.
Yes. But then when he blames it on Hillary’s emails benghazi, continuing to humor him in any way is appeasement.
If he walked over to you afterward, tears streaming down his face, broke your glasses, punched you and pushed you down, would you ask him politely why he thought that was a productive response?
I think I mentioned that sometimes there isn’t time around the water cooler or whatever to even try and counter things like this. Pick your battles.
I didn’t say that last part, just to be clear.
Aye; there might have been. I’m not a perfect person. And some comments, like the one about black people, set me off so that I see very little to be gained from trying to reason with someone. Past experience and all that. Not every belief or attitude that people have is reasonable, IMO.
I agree; it is hard sometimes. But they are adults and have the right to act however they want, as long as they aren’t breaking the law. Thus far, acting childish is still legal. But so is being patronizing. If listening and trying to understand doesn’t create a mutual bond of any kind, then let loose and tell them in no uncertain terms what you think. Why not?
No, some aren’t. Some people will not be swayed; we call them zealots or true believers or fanatics. Many people are closed minded, no doubt.
In most cases, tho, it is difficult to tell who is a zealot and who is not without listening to them first.
And writing off 50% of the population as “idiots” is not going to help identify which are zealots and which are not and more importantly, it is not going to win votes and win elections.
I ordered my Nasty Woman* t-shirt last week.
I would like to know when the Republicans will let me know that I am valued and an appreciated member of society. Why does a GOP candidate/policy better represent my interests?
- Got it at Samantha Bee’s website. 100% of proceeds go to Planned Parenthood.
I don’t recall making any comment about humoring anyone; could you quote where you think I said that?
No, I don’t think that would be my first response.
All very good points, xeno.
- A lot of those are pretty easy to do and will be done. Some others are things where Trump talked out of both sides of his mouth (Planned P, banning all Muslims, etc) and one is probably even underestimating the relatively small fraction of Trump true believers in his national vote to think they really expect the most extreme versions of those statements. The bulk of his voters (who just thought HRC was worse than he) definitely don’t.
The problem will be delivering end results, ‘jobs coming back’ and so forth. It’s not so much ‘renegotiating’ NAFTA (how big a change does it have to be to count?). It’s that the agreement isn’t actually much of the reason for macro trends in the economy, is in fact beneficial to the US in many ways, and so nothing you do with it will have huge positive impact. And TPP was dead anyway, with even more marginal impact. It’s not so much shifting economic policies in a more conservative direction either (where Trump agrees with conservatives, anti-trade isn’t conservatism particularly, it’s populism). Netting results is where it’s always difficult. Lots of people believed in Obama’s economic policies, but there’s a good deal of spin in saying the economic situation has turned out so well last 8 yrs. Perhaps better than it would have been with other policies, but obviously not wowing everyone with its fantasticness. Same is likely for other policies; the federal govt has limited influence on the economy.
But again, if we don’t caricature Trump voters as little children compared to the wise and mature Clinton voters…they mostly already know no politician is going to transform their lives. That’s not the standard he’ll be held to, which is always the good news for lists of exaggerated presidential candidate promises.
- I agree with that however would try to put it in more broadly palatable (a lot of people now are allergic to terms like ‘spiritual’) and general terms. I take it for granted most people don’t really think of politics as a way to get what they basically need they couldn’t get otherwise. Some do, any generalization about 200 million eligible voters must have millions of exceptions. But most don’t. So what are they really looking for from the political outcome? I think that’s the place to start in understanding politics. Economic determinism is definitely not, nor IMO the extension of it which says only some sort of demonic possession (like ‘racism’, which has tended become kind of a postmodern version of the devil or witchcraft) overrides economic determinism. People vote for stuff like community as they perceive it, stuff like nationalism, respect for traditional values, etc. Or in opposition to those things. But if you put the things just in the language of one side (as in nationalism=racism, traditional values=homophobia and misogyny etc), the language can actually get in the way of understanding.
I would not take that bet. 
I suppose humor is the wrong word, as that does imply condescension, and that’ll piss him right off. If we continue to listen, understand, and empathize at that point, then that is appeasement.
Before I answer that question, I’d like to know what a better moral fiber is. And why you think you are qualified to make that determination.
Because to me, a better moral fiber is one which views all people, whether man or woman, pink or brown, old or young, atheist or religious, Christian or Muslim, gay or straight, etc. as being equal and equally entitled to consideration. A better moral fiber is one which respects our planet and works to make it a healthier place for humans, other animals, and plants to live. A better moral fiber is one which assures that no one must go without food and shelter and healthcare. A better moral fiber is one which understands that we each have sovereign control over our own bodies. Do you agree?
I am not sure how much economic loss is worth that better moral fiber.
There are an awful lot of ‘Deplorables’ t-shirts out there, as well - a lot of them worn by women.
And where have I ever written anything that suggests people do that?
Look, the problem is that 50% of the country voted for Trump. Not all 50% did so because they are unrepentant racists, homophobes, misogynists, etc.
Do you agree with that statement?
I’m willing to bet cash money these are not your mother’s actual words.
Look-I have been asking over and over and over again on these boards, for many months, for a sane, non-racist, non-“HillaryBengaziJail!!!” Republican to tell me why they believed in Trump enough to vote for him, even after knowing his background…and I would have an easier time polling Gay Unicorns for Christ.
In this thread, you said that we should listen, understand, and empathize. We pointed out that we already tried that. It seemed that you were trying to say that we needed to try it harder.
Thats my point, at a certain point, if the other side is not acting in good faith, then it doesn’t matter how much empathy you throw at them, they are still going to kick you in the balls and laugh at you. Continuing to treat them in any way with the deference that you seem to be advocating for at that point pretty much is appeasement.
Now, did the slightly less then 50% of the country that voted for trump vote because they were bigots?
No. But some did. We need to acknowledge that some percentage of Trump supporters voted for him for exactly those reasons. I don’t know the percentage, but I hope it is small. I fear it is large.
Some voted because they had heard so much about hillary, they thought she must be a crook. I would ask them what she did, and they would mutter some combination of foster, benghazi, emails, lewinski…, and insist that it disqualified her in any way for office.
Some voted because they got their symbolic granddad (bernie) taken away, and felt the need to punish the DNC for it.
Some voted because they want to see the country crash. They think it’ll be easier to rebuild from the ashes than to try to fix what’s wrong. They think that because they have never built anything before.
I have had discussions with all of those groups. I have tried listening to all of those groups. I have tried understanding their concerns. I have tried being empathetic to their fears.
They still don’t want to listen to anything they don’t want to hear.
Look, I’m a white, straight, middle aged, land owning, business owning male living in midwest flyover country. To be honest the current set up is probably better for me personally. I don’t need to listen to the fears of these people. I am these people. I am one of the ones who will benefit in this regime.
I just don’t want to benefit at the likely cost, and trying to explain that cost to my peers is virtually impossible.