Donald Trump

[cashto]

QUOTE (Terran @ Nov 2 2018, 10:50 PM) this. if only the liberals chilled out more and argued more with convincing facts rather than knee-jerk emotional reactions.

i watched a live debate between Steve Bannon and some republican establishment dude today in Toronto. premise was something like "do you think populist rhetoric will drive future political discourse?" started at 28% for, ended at 57% for. huge win for Bannon. in liberal bastion Toronto. liberals need to l2debate. #l2aim #stopwhining

two conservatives had a debate and the only loser was the liberal for not being there?

perhaps if one were on stage he might have replied, "what do you mean, FUTURE discourse?"

[zombywoof]

My friend was telling me that people changing their views is a fairly rare phenomenon, and that when it does happen the most likely source (by a fairly large margin) was facts and/or rational argument. He had some evidence that I don't currently have about it.

On the flipside, it seems very likely to me that people are more likely to be convinced by arguments they can understand. By their nature, populist arguments tend to be very simplistic: "The reason you don't have jobs is because those mexicans came here and took those jobs." They can also be reinforced by media representation in ways that allow people to "skip" steps in their thought process. When Trump talks about MS-13 members crossing the border, for example, it's easy for someone to watch Narcos and Breaking Bad and think "yeah that makes sense, these drug cartels are all latin american, so if people come from latin america where the drugs come from..."

It's *not* easy to see that the prevalence of drug cartels is largely the result of prohibition policies the likes of which caused the explosion of organized crime in the early 1900s. That interpretation requires looking back into the past and drawing connections between seemingly independent events in history and carefully analyzing the economic impact of a product which is addictive and enjoyable to use.

It's also not easy to see that, almost without fail, cartel members are NOT the people who are crossing the border illegally. Most drugs almost certainly enter the United States through legitimate channels. Who would you rather carry your expensive drugs across the border, a small family interested in doing agricultural work in Texas, or the white college kid who's hooked to coke whose parents are oil millionaires and if he gets caught will get instantly bailed out of any trouble whatsoever? Or that no matter how tight the border becomes, the drugs will always find a way in because there's no way in hell you're watching an entire coastline for everyone coming in off the beach.

The argument that the problem is people aren't facing fascists with the right facts is very obviously false anyways: how many people continue to flock to Las Vegas in order to pull a little handle inn a smoke-filled room whose only effect is to turn your dollar into 98 cents? Yet state lotteries are immensely profitable even when they're paying out $1.8 billion off tickets that cost a mere $2 apiece. In Kingdom of Loathing, people played the "meat making game" which was literally two people putting up an equal amount of currency, a coin flip occurs, and one side gets 90% of the pile of currency while the other 10% disappears into the void. Your expected value on your currency is 95% of the currency and people *still* play it.

I mean, yes, I know, TheAlaskan is trolling and Terran is laughing along with it, but people honestly and earnestly *believe* these myths that "all you really need are the right set of facts." People will believe a convenient lie far, far, far, far, FAR faster than they'll believe a complicated truth. The solution to this is, of course, education... but not in the sense of "teaching people that fascism is bad." Education in the sense of "instill in people a visceral understanding that the universe we live in does not have easy solutions, and if you think you've found an easy solution you've either misunderstood the parameters of the question or come up with a solution that doesn't work."

[zombywoof]

People are also attracted to confidence, which leads to a sort of weird problem where idiots who are DEFINITELY 100% SURE THIS IS THE THING THAT IS HAPPENING tend to attract people, whereas intelligent people say things like "the evidence points to this thing happening" and "we're pretty sure this thing is happening" and "I'm fairly confident that this is expressive of reality." You might have heard this as Dunning-Krueger, which is NOT that "you're so bad you don't know that you're bad" but rather "you're confident in your views because you have a limited understanding of reality."

[TheAlaskan]

I think Trump's successful election was an eye-opener for me - I was a fairly straightforward liberal, and I found his election instantly infuriating. How could such a large swath of the electorate be so repulsed by liberal ideas that they're willing to be led by such an obviously fraudulent, morally bereft, incapable leader? It's because they don't like Democrats' ideas (edit) and haven't been convinced because they're pushed off through identity politics and moral grandstanding. (end edit)

It took me some time and a little pride-swallowing to try and listen to conservatives and get a better feel for why they were so *confident* in their ideas. My dad, for example, has been listening to Rush Limbaugh for literally 20+ years... he and I engage in very civil debates now because I decided to actually listen to him; I was able to sway him on my idea of immigration reform and universal health care, meanwhile, he made a good case for how the liberal left is sabotaging our civil discourse in its own right. He also reformed some of my thoughts about the approach and meaning of national security. I'm more "educated" than him, but it doesn't mean *every* idea he has is invalidated. He's a tad racist and sexist, but that's just how some people are and it's hard to change that with facts.

Conservative ideas, while not always compassionate, are based on a different moral fabric than progressive ideas. Hard to change that, so we actually need to learn how to have a discourse. My point is that we have to have a *civil* discourse and let others speak or it hurts the efficacy of our system. Nobody is 100% right and nobody is 100% wrong. When both sides are shouting each other down, there won't be any good result; exactly how many minds on this message board has Ryu changed? Mayyybbeeee Madaccountant's?

I used to tout myself as a 'moderate' but I was lying to myself. I'm actually a moderate now... I'm not sure if this is proof, but I while I typically vote Democrat in elections, I find myself voting down more liberal referendums for what's that worth.

If you want to say I'm trolling, that's fair. I troll a ton on here but it's usually fairly obvious and isn't the case right now. Anyways, my trolling is usually a lot funnier than making fairminded arguments for the right to free speech and civil discourse. And, I'm not giving Terran a horsey-back ride (just did that for my two-year-old so that's the analogy you get); he has been consistent in his ideas and I tend to agree with him.

Also, Ryu smashed my screen door and I didn't make him pay for it, and I bought you a beer and a burger so chill out.

[cashto]

QUOTE (Terran @ Nov 2 2018, 10:50 PM) this. if only the liberals chilled out more and argued more with convincing facts rather than knee-jerk emotional reactions.

i watched a live debate between Steve Bannon and some republican establishment dude today in Toronto. premise was something like "do you think populist rhetoric will drive future political discourse?" started at 28% for, ended at 57% for. huge win for Bannon. in liberal bastion Toronto. liberals need to l2debate. #l2aim #stopwhining

So I watched that same debate just now, the whole thing. Honestly I'm surprised Bannon came out the audience's favorite, given the frequent audible groans and laughter at many of his outright whoppers. But I'm reminded that debates are often "won" in the audience's minds not by the words said but by the demeanor of the participants. Bannon was affable throughout, capable of laughing at himself, whereas Frum grew visibly emotional and his arguments increasingly frenetic and scattershot towards the end.

I'm sympathetic to Frum's side, so I can't help wanting to coach him. I think Frum spent too little time on Bannon's ridiculous claim that the Trump economy is a marked improvement over the trajectory of the Obama economy. This is a point easily eviscerated by facts. He could have better called out Bannon's eagerness to credit Trump with everything that's gone right since 2016 and the Republican establishment with everything that's gone wrong. And Trump's single most significant contribution to the American economy -- the corporate tax cut -- got zero mention the entire night by either side. Which, I think is a shame, because it would have utterly demolished Bannon's assertion that Trump stands for the little man over the Establishment, or that the Trump economy isn't also based on "flooding the zone" with deficit spending.

Frum instead spent a lot of time on populism's problematic relationship with xenophobia, racism, bigotry and violence -- which, he makes good points. Scapegoating "globalists" in general, and George Soros specifically, is truly a path that leads to more darker conspiracy theories. Some may not travel the full road, but it remains baby's first introduction to fascism regardless. It's not clear to me if even Bannon himself has reached that point. Perhaps he secretly harbors white supremacist fantasies, but they're not on display in this debate. He uses warm and embracing language towards Israel, and to the black community. Bannon is undeniably a skilled propagandist on par with Goebbels, and I think having the audacity to get up on stage and say with a straight face that racism played zero part in Trump's success is a classic example of the Big Lie technique. It's ridiculous, and the audience laughs at him as he says it, and yet the proposition gains credibility by the very confidence in which he says it.

But Bannon is not here to talk about racism, he's here to talk about "economic nationalism". Unfortunately, Frum's rebuttal doesn't engage with Bannon's key point head-on. And when you get into the weeds of whether antifa is worse than neo-nazis or vice versa, I feel you lose sight of the bigger picture. Debates are often won not by the speakers' strongest points, but lost by their weakest. And there's nothing to be gained in arguing which side has the bigger crazies. An ideology should be judged by its best proponents, not its worst. "Nutpicking" is a pastime anyone engage in if the only goal is to achieve a smug sense of satisfaction and moral superiority over others.

Rather I would urge everyone -- don't look at the crazies. Look instead at the people you respect, the wisest, most level-headed people -- who do they support? And not to put them in that category, but if even dyed-in-the-wool conservatives like David Frum, Rick Wilson, Max Boot, and George $#@!ing Will are saying the Republican party is absolutely morally bankrupt and the Democratic party is the only game in town, that it is the only responsible choice whether you agree with the full platform or not -- then maybe it's time to vote for Democrats, even if just for a season.

Lastly I would say -- if you are fan of Bernie Sanders -- listen to how Bannon describes his view of Sanders. They clearly have differences -- "nationalist populism" vs "socialist populism", in Bannon's words -- but fundamentally they are on the same side: the little people vs. "the party of Davos" (ie, the combined Republican-Democratic establishment duopoly). This might be a wake-up-call for some, but the Sanders-to-Trump pipeline is real, because the two movements are Not So Different after all. Bannon actively courts Sanders voters; he positions his movement as merely a more productive form of populism than Sanders's. Of course, the lie is that there is a "productive form" of populism at all -- it is, and has always been, a bumper-sticker ideology, doomed to fail. But Bannon argues, like in 1930s Germany, that the choice is not "whether populism?", but which kind -- fascism or communism? But this is a false choice: the answer is the liberal order that destroyed them both and went on to usher in nearly a century of the greatest increase in prosperity ever known.

PS: it turns out that the post-debate poll was erroneously reported. The debate organizers later clarified that the post-exit polls actually showed support for both sides unchanged, neither side "won" in the audience's opinion.

[zombywoof]

QUOTE (TheAlaskan @ Nov 3 2018, 12:33 PM) I think Trump's successful election was an eye-opener for me - I was a fairly straightforward liberal, and I found his election instantly infuriating. How could such a large swath of the electorate be so repulsed by liberal ideas that they're willing to be led by such an obviously fraudulent, morally bereft, incapable leader? It's because they don't like Democrats' ideas (edit) and haven't been convinced because they're pushed off through identity politics and moral grandstanding. (end edit)

See, the issue I have with this is the idea that it's about "identity politics." You get to ignore "identity politics" because you're white, cis, het, and male. There are not established power structures that seek to enslave you, disenfranchise you, or murder you because of the color of your skin, the gender you have, or the people you like to $#@!. And pretending like these issues aren't "conservative" does a real disservice to conservatives: I know plenty of conservatives who are incensed at the racism and sexism coming out of the Republican party. I know conservatives who aside from disliking Hillary Clinton were furious that Donald Trump received a pass for all of his bull@#(! while Clinton's various suits were constantly under attack.

As for moral grandstanding, areyou$#@!ingkiddingme.jpg. If you're actually angry at the "moral grandstanding" of the left (which is pretty much for the most part "can you just let people who aren't like you live in peace for once") but you just kind of blink off everything the right has said for the past fifty years I'm forced to wonder what you're even paying attention to.

QUOTE It took me some time and a little pride-swallowing to try and listen to conservatives and get a better feel for why they were so *confident* in their ideas. My dad, for example, has been listening to Rush Limbaugh for literally 20+ years... he and I engage in very civil debates now because I decided to actually listen to him; I was able to sway him on my idea of immigration reform and universal health care, meanwhile, he made a good case for how the liberal left is sabotaging our civil discourse in its own right. He also reformed some of my thoughts about the approach and meaning of national security. I'm more "educated" than him, but it doesn't mean *every* idea he has is invalidated. He's a tad racist and sexist, but that's just how some people are and it's hard to change that with facts.[/quote]

But the thing you're missing is that some people (myself in particular and the community of people I live in) aren't just saddened by your dad's racism and sexism. Our lives are literally under threat by racism and sexism. Dylan Roof shot up a Black church because he didn't like black people. When was the last time someone shot up a white church in America? You get to sit on the sidelines of all this and armchair general how minorities "should" deal with the constant assault on their ability to live in public spaces because you don't have to face the threat generated by the racists and the sexists.

To then turn around and claim these minorities are somehow "causing" this backlash is a) gaslighting and b) literally parroting the voices of segregationists. And while it is safer now than it ever has been before for women, LGBT folk, and ethnic minorities, we still have instances all the time of people, many of whom are people in positions of authority whether it be police officers or notaries public or pharmacists, who take actions that either directly or indirectly threaten the lives of these minority groups. When a black man is shot in the back 16 times for having a knife but a man who killed 11 people with guns is arrested peacefully, any calls that "well the problem is identity politics" will be dismissed because they fly in the objective face of reality.

QUOTE Conservative ideas, while not always compassionate, are based on a different moral fabric than progressive ideas. Hard to change that, so we actually need to learn how to have a discourse. My point is that we have to have a *civil* discourse and let others speak or it hurts the efficacy of our system. Nobody is 100% right and nobody is 100% wrong. When both sides are shouting each other down, there won't be any good result; exactly how many minds on this message board has Ryu changed? Mayyybbeeee Madaccountant's?[/quote]
Civil discourse is very, VERY hard when one side is literally encouraging its actors to kill the other side. Should a Jew sit down and have a civil conversation with someone who honestly and earnestly believes that the Jew should be murdered for being Jewish? It's a great story when it happens, but I for one am absolutely not going to go "but both sides" when that Jewish person simply declines to interact with the nazi. Should a woman sit down and have a civil conversation with her rapist about how rape isn't ok? Clearly and obviously not. But at this point in time, this is what you are saying "needs to happen." Maybe *you* can sit down with a transphobe and have a civil conversation about how they should just be accepting of someone else's gender identity. I can't because they are literally coming from a position where my brain is utterly defective and I'm a monstrosity and abomination before god.

QUOTE I used to tout myself as a 'moderate' but I was lying to myself. I'm actually a moderate now... I'm not sure if this is proof, but I while I typically vote Democrat in elections, I find myself voting down more liberal referendums for what's that worth.[/quote]
I find myself voting down the vast majority of referendums that attempt to enact policy, but that's because I have a very low opinion of the average voter's ability to comprehend policy positions. I joke it's because they're too stupid but the real answer is complicated, and has to do with the fact that the average voter simply doesn't have time to become sufficiently informed on policy issues because they are busy raising kids, having jobs, etc. etc.

QUOTE If you want to say I'm trolling, that's fair. I troll a ton on here but it's usually fairly obvious and isn't the case right now. Anyways, my trolling is usually a lot funnier than making fairminded arguments for the right to free speech and civil discourse. And, I'm not giving Terran a horsey-back ride (just did that for my two-year-old so that's the analogy you get); he has been consistent in his ideas and I tend to agree with him.[/quote]
I presumed you were trolling because your post and Terran's post are very heavily disconnected from reality. All available evidence shows that censorship on campus is not a partisan issue, and this is before we even factor in the nutso "universities" like Liberty University and Pensacola Bible College.

(For more information, check out the stories here: https://www.thefire.org/newsdesk/ . Many of the highest profile cases are when a conservative person on a university is "suppressed," but there are at least as many instances where university professors are harassed or threatened for having liberal beliefs, typically not by students in those cases but by conservative lawmakers.)

Claims that liberals are making inflammatory statements simply fall flat when the elected president says that Stacey Abrams (who has a law degree from Yale, which is where Kavanaugh went, and served 10 years as Georgia's minority leader in their lower house) is "not qualified" to be governor.

What, do you suppose, is Trump referring to by her being not qualified?

They fall flat in the face of Trump calling Andrew Gillum a criminal. What about Gillum do you suppose makes Trump think he's a criminal?

They fall flat in the face of Trump telling us that Mexico is sending their drug dealers and rapists.

They fall flat in the face of Trump telling us that Democrats are "funding" a caravan of immigrants.

They fall flat in the face of Fox News telling us that the assassination attempts on democratic leaders was a "false flag."

They fall flat in the face of basically everything published by Brietbart, Alex Jones, Daily Stormer, and The Federalist.

QUOTE Also, Ryu smashed my screen door and I didn't make him pay for it, and I bought you a beer and a burger so chill out.[/quote]
Yeah and gave me my first taste of the ganja. I remember it well. We watched some hockey. That won't ever change the fact that my life, and the lives of many of my friends, is on the line every day because of the various flavors of bigot that not just live in this country but actually factually run it.

[zombywoof]

And FYI, the reason Trump's successful campaign was an eye-opener to me was because it revealed precisely how racist and sexist and queerphobic a significant plurality of this nation is. I never, ever thought we'd have to have a "national conversation" about whether or not you should shoot up a synagogue and yet here we $#@!ing are.

[TheAlaskan]

So because I'm white and hetero, that means I have no valid opinion on how Americans (or all people for that matter) should generally engage with each other? Doesn't that seem a little... sexist and racist?

[zombywoof]

QUOTE (TheAlaskan @ Nov 3 2018, 03:53 PM) So because I'm white and hetero, that means I have no valid opinion on how Americans (or all people for that matter) should generally engage with each other?

Obviously that is not the case.

[TheAlaskan]

Also, a lot of your response (without forum-lawyering it) felt like it took 'find a way to communicate with each other civilly' to the most possible extreme examples where that simply isn't possible. I don't think it's reasonable to make that leap; I never said rape victims and rapists have equal viewpoints, neo-nazis with jews, etc., and I don't think that's possible either. I agree with you.

Just a white, straight dude, so what do I know?