In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On August 23 2016 04:25 KwarK wrote: I had a pretty sweet thing going on when I just got to assume that politicians would look and sound like me. I don't especially like it when I see characters in the media who I can't relate to or who have different experiences to me instead of a constant stream of material tailor made for me. But at the same time I recognize that I was wrong to ever expect the world to be built around keeping me from feeling threatened by "the other".
I get it and I don't like it anymore than anyone else but the erosion of the privileged male political establishment does not equate to sexism and won't unless things go just as far in the opposite direction. We're calibrated to an unrealistic standard basically.
We see the same shit every time someone cynical in the media tries to get attention for their project by saying "what if Santa was black?!?" and people freak the fuck out because naturally Santa, a fictional character, must look the way they picture him.
I don't think that encapsulates the entirety of the problem. The problem is the fact that there appears to be no gender/race-neutral way to go about it currently. Most people ought to love that option.
Most people I think would want to push for that ideal, yet many reject it as 'if you aren't fighting for my marginalized group, you're against us'.
Which has led to the radical polarization on the issue we see today.
To one group, it fights for neutrality. To the other group, this is seen as not fighting for neutrality but fighting for the status quo which is white-male dominated by default.
To another group, it fights for marginalized groups. To the other group, this is seen as fighting against neutrality, but for a type of affirmative-action racism whereby a minority if received privileges and benefits based purely on their minority status, despite the fact that the laws of the land are supposed to already protect their minority status.
It's all very muffled and confused with neither side really talking to or understanding each other.
the latter group likes to mock the former group on the assumption that they're just using that type of rhetoric to cover for their own prejudices
which isn't even always wrong, but the mockery certainly seems counterproductive
On August 23 2016 04:25 KwarK wrote: I had a pretty sweet thing going on when I just got to assume that politicians would look and sound like me. I don't especially like it when I see characters in the media who I can't relate to or who have different experiences to me instead of a constant stream of material tailor made for me. But at the same time I recognize that I was wrong to ever expect the world to be built around keeping me from feeling threatened by "the other".
I get it and I don't like it anymore than anyone else but the erosion of the privileged male political establishment does not equate to sexism and won't unless things go just as far in the opposite direction. We're calibrated to an unrealistic standard basically.
We see the same shit every time someone cynical in the media tries to get attention for their project by saying "what if Santa was black?!?" and people freak the fuck out because naturally Santa, a fictional character, must look the way they picture him.
I don't think that encapsulates the entirety of the problem. The problem is the fact that there appears to be no gender/race-neutral way to go about it currently. Most people ought to love that option.
Most people I think would want to push for that ideal, yet many reject it as 'if you aren't fighting for my marginalized group, you're against us'.
Which has led to the radical polarization on the issue we see today.
To one group, it fights for neutrality. To the other group, this is seen as not fighting for neutrality but fighting for the status quo which is white-male dominated by default.
To another group, it fights for marginalized groups. To the other group, this is seen as fighting against neutrality, but for a type of affirmative-action racism whereby a minority if received privileges and benefits based purely on their minority status, despite the fact that the laws of the land are supposed to already protect their minority status.
It's all very muffled and confused with neither side really talking to or understanding each other.
Well it's very understandable. They're taking a neutral position because they now know that they disenfranchise too many voters if they say what they actually think. It's like being ambiguous about climate change instead of denying it, which is of course no less stupid, but at least makes you look better. It's just a silly tactic.
On August 23 2016 04:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I don't know if Kwark thinks that this sort of thing will always be necessary. Is it possible to have a neutral status quo? Or by default, is the status quo always beneficial to one group at the expense of marginalizing all others.
It's possible to have a neutral status quo. The Catholic Protestant divide used to be a huge issue that people campaigned and voted on. Now, not so much and subsequently we don't see specific denominational pandering really because it's not an electoral issue. Christian candidate has replaced Protestant candidate as the benchmark to be conformed with. And at some point an atheist or a Muslim will run and there will be a huge thing about it and if he wins we'll see the same meme I posted earlier with "religious prejudice" pasted in over racism. And some time after that it'll probably stop being an issue.
But we're not there now. Presidential runs are still gendered.
'You should vote for me and not him because I'm a female and he's a male'
Clinton does not say this. You may see it as her saying that, but it is not what she says.
regardless of the technical accuracy of that claim specifically, it'd be quite disingenuous to claim that she doesn't play up her status as the first viable female candidate
Personally, I would rather discussion specific statements by Clinton over the hyperbolic summaries of those statements. It is easier to discuss the points when we are not arguing over how someone recalls those statements at the time.
in what world are these elements of her campaign NOT playing up her gender?
im not even against celebrating her victory as a symbolic one for women's rights, but why is she the one doing it herself?
but yea kwark makes decent points about why this is all right and ok idk its still not something that completely sits well with me
There's truth to what Kwark says.
The problem is that in an ideal world, we already have equal rights for everyone and the default position should in fact be gender/race neutral. The argument from Kwark is that it's not, and the 'identity politics' criticized by many are necessary to protected marginalized groups.
I don't know if Kwark thinks that this sort of thing will always be necessary. Is it possible to have a neutral status quo? Or by default, is the status quo always beneficial to one group at the expense of marginalizing all others.
I'd say it's problematic because just because you belong to a 'marginalized group', like women, doesn't mean you're actually one of the people suffering from the marginalization. I think you can be a woman who hasn't really suffered at all from marginalization in this country due to the fact that you are a woman. In fact, I think it's even possible that in some cases the scales have reversed. But then in a lot situations, the problem of marginalization is very real and still exists. But the nature of the problem, or how to solve it, isn't very well understood by most people leading to a huge variety of issues.
I think it's a very complex issue with a lot of gears in play and a lot of things at stake.
On August 23 2016 04:10 Doodsmack wrote: If you're going to consider sexism as part of your decision it becomes clear that Trump issues sexist statements with malicious intent. Just this morning he called a female a "mess", which we could pretend is neutral but then we're faced with the fact that he doesn't use that kind of language with males. Hillary using the "gender card" is only sexist if you construct an abstract argument.
This is just stupid. He's called so many people that regardless of gender
I get what you mean in general but I just want to posit that marginalization of any kind always acts as an oppressive force. Some examples would be a woman living in a society that marginalizes woman but having a family or spouse who views her as equal, or being a slave but having comparatively kind owners. That particular woman or slave may not be as marginalized as some of their brothers and sisters, but they are still oppressed. I wouldn't accuse you of this but I find it odd how often people can downplay the effects such things have on peoples. The knee-jerk reaction to aggressively downplay the experiences of minority groups or demonize those who would point out any sort of unfair treatment is foreign to me.
On August 23 2016 04:14 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: yea youre right i find all of politicking fucking weird and gross i guess my perspectives not very important
also
do you mind snipping images via spoiler or removal of the [img] tags to avoid large quotes like that? in fact ill spoiler my post myself
this kind of stuff reminds me that people actually apparently need to be reminded that hillary is the better vote if you care about womens rights
But how is bringing that up “playing the gender card”? Women and men struggled for decades to obtain rights for women. The right to vote, to service, to be judges, doctors, attorneys. A woman being nominated for president is an important movement for those people and they want to celebrate.
Of course there is political gain to be had from the celebration, but I am not in favor of stopping most of the discussion about the first female candidate because it will be seen as “playing the woman card.”
And think of the added bonus of Bill Clinton having to pick out presidential china to be displayed in the White House.
It's problematic because she's just using it as a pretext to garner more votes for herself, and no one can call her out on this or it suddenly warps into 'they're against women being presidents!"
On August 23 2016 04:25 KwarK wrote: I had a pretty sweet thing going on when I just got to assume that politicians would look and sound like me. I don't especially like it when I see characters in the media who I can't relate to or who have different experiences to me instead of a constant stream of material tailor made for me. But at the same time I recognize that I was wrong to ever expect the world to be built around keeping me from feeling threatened by "the other".
I get it and I don't like it anymore than anyone else but the erosion of the privileged male political establishment does not equate to sexism and won't unless things go just as far in the opposite direction. We're calibrated to an unrealistic standard basically.
We see the same shit every time someone cynical in the media tries to get attention for their project by saying "what if Santa was black?!?" and people freak the fuck out because naturally Santa, a fictional character, must look the way they picture him.
I don't think that encapsulates the entirety of the problem. The problem is the fact that there appears to be no gender/race-neutral way to go about it currently. Most people ought to love that option.
Most people I think would want to push for that ideal, yet many reject it as 'if you aren't fighting for my marginalized group, you're against us'.
Which has led to the radical polarization on the issue we see today.
To one group, it fights for neutrality. To the other group, this is seen as not fighting for neutrality but fighting for the status quo which is white-male dominated by default.
To another group, it fights for marginalized groups. To the other group, this is seen as fighting against neutrality, but for a type of affirmative-action racism whereby a minority if received privileges and benefits based purely on their minority status, despite the fact that the laws of the land are supposed to already protect their minority status.
It's all very muffled and confused with neither side really talking to or understanding each other.
the latter group likes to mock the former group on the assumption that they're just using that type of rhetoric to cover for their own prejudices
which isn't even always wrong, but the mockery certainly seems counterproductive
Both groups mock each other on misrepresentations whereas if politics wasn't so adversarial these days, I'm sure both groups would be surprised at how much they agree on
im gonna sound like an intersectionality-thumping MRA-dumbass feminist or something but its important to remember that the masculine model pigeonholes men in politics as well to acting a certain way
at the same time a lot of that masculine model is genuinely meritorious (being bold, assertive, commanding, etc) so yea its sad that women r expected by a lot of men to not be that way
boldness is a virtue and women in a lot of cultures are pigeonholed into the opposite, meekness and submissiveness
This is just stupid. He's called so many people that regardless of gender
I can't say I've seen examples. On the other hand we could trot out a lot of examples of him using this type of language with females.
It literally became a meme from him calling his male primary opponents 'a mess' for months
Most notably Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz
You just aren't trying very hard to find examples that would contradict what you want to believe, which is just human nature
I did various google searches and came up empty. Can you provide proof? And there's still the issue of the rest of the language Trump has used in regards to specific females he's exacting revenge on.
'You should vote for me and not him because I'm a female and he's a male'
Clinton does not say this. You may see it as her saying that, but it is not what she says.
regardless of the technical accuracy of that claim specifically, it'd be quite disingenuous to claim that she doesn't play up her status as the first viable female candidate
Personally, I would rather discussion specific statements by Clinton over the hyperbolic summaries of those statements. It is easier to discuss the points when we are not arguing over how someone recalls those statements at the time.
in what world are these elements of her campaign NOT playing up her gender?
im not even against celebrating her victory as a symbolic one for women's rights, but why is she the one doing it herself?
but yea kwark makes decent points about why this is all right and ok idk its still not something that completely sits well with me
There's truth to what Kwark says.
The problem is that in an ideal world, we already have equal rights for everyone and the default position should in fact be gender/race neutral. The argument from Kwark is that it's not, and the 'identity politics' criticized by many are necessary to protected marginalized groups.
I don't know if Kwark thinks that this sort of thing will always be necessary. Is it possible to have a neutral status quo? Or by default, is the status quo always beneficial to one group at the expense of marginalizing all others.
I'd say it's problematic because just because you belong to a 'marginalized group', like women, doesn't mean you're actually one of the people suffering from the marginalization. I think you can be a woman who hasn't really suffered at all from marginalization in this country due to the fact that you are a woman. In fact, I think it's even possible that in some cases the scales have reversed. But then in a lot situations, the problem of marginalization is very real and still exists. But the nature of the problem, or how to solve it, isn't very well understood by most people leading to a huge variety of issues.
I think it's a very complex issue with a lot of gears in play and a lot of things at stake.
On August 23 2016 04:10 Doodsmack wrote: If you're going to consider sexism as part of your decision it becomes clear that Trump issues sexist statements with malicious intent. Just this morning he called a female a "mess", which we could pretend is neutral but then we're faced with the fact that he doesn't use that kind of language with males. Hillary using the "gender card" is only sexist if you construct an abstract argument.
This is just stupid. He's called so many people that regardless of gender
The knee-jerk reaction to aggressively downplay the experiences of minority groups or demonize those who would point out any sort of unfair treatment is foreign to me.
On August 23 2016 04:41 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: im gonna sound like an intersectionality-thumping MRA-dumbass feminist or something but its important to remember that the masculine model pigeonholes men in politics as well to acting a certain way
at the same time a lot of that masculine model is genuinely meritorious (being bold, assertive, commanding, etc) so yea its sad that women r expected by a lot of men to not be that way
boldness is a virtue and women in a lot of cultures are pigeonholed into the opposite, meekness and submissiveness
Given how well boldness functions in international diplomacy I have no problem replacing it with a little meekness. I don't really know how you can look at world history and conclude that more boldness is what we need
Isn't the point to try and get people who are similar to you in some way on your side? How is this any different than a politician playing the faith card or saying they have such and such values. If anything playing 'the woman card' is rather smart since that is 50% of the population. Sure you might alienate some small portion of men who have a problem with someone appealing to something that doesn't at all encompass them, but so what. Seems that these are the same people who come up with piffle such as 'such and such candidate spoke Spanish to appeal to the Hispanic vote' and get upset about it. News flash, there are people out there with different values, identities, and experiences from yours, and there is nothing wrong with appealing to that.....
'You should vote for me and not him because I'm a female and he's a male'
Clinton does not say this. You may see it as her saying that, but it is not what she says.
regardless of the technical accuracy of that claim specifically, it'd be quite disingenuous to claim that she doesn't play up her status as the first viable female candidate
Personally, I would rather discussion specific statements by Clinton over the hyperbolic summaries of those statements. It is easier to discuss the points when we are not arguing over how someone recalls those statements at the time.
in what world are these elements of her campaign NOT playing up her gender?
im not even against celebrating her victory as a symbolic one for women's rights, but why is she the one doing it herself?
but yea kwark makes decent points about why this is all right and ok idk its still not something that completely sits well with me
There's truth to what Kwark says.
The problem is that in an ideal world, we already have equal rights for everyone and the default position should in fact be gender/race neutral. The argument from Kwark is that it's not, and the 'identity politics' criticized by many are necessary to protected marginalized groups.
I don't know if Kwark thinks that this sort of thing will always be necessary. Is it possible to have a neutral status quo? Or by default, is the status quo always beneficial to one group at the expense of marginalizing all others.
I'd say it's problematic because just because you belong to a 'marginalized group', like women, doesn't mean you're actually one of the people suffering from the marginalization. I think you can be a woman who hasn't really suffered at all from marginalization in this country due to the fact that you are a woman. In fact, I think it's even possible that in some cases the scales have reversed. But then in a lot situations, the problem of marginalization is very real and still exists. But the nature of the problem, or how to solve it, isn't very well understood by most people leading to a huge variety of issues.
I think it's a very complex issue with a lot of gears in play and a lot of things at stake.
On August 23 2016 04:10 Doodsmack wrote: If you're going to consider sexism as part of your decision it becomes clear that Trump issues sexist statements with malicious intent. Just this morning he called a female a "mess", which we could pretend is neutral but then we're faced with the fact that he doesn't use that kind of language with males. Hillary using the "gender card" is only sexist if you construct an abstract argument.
This is just stupid. He's called so many people that regardless of gender
The knee-jerk reaction to aggressively downplay the experiences of minority groups or demonize those who would point out any sort of unfair treatment is foreign to me.
No one here is doing that.
I was rather careful to not accuse anyone in the current discussion of doing so. But I've seen it happen in this thread on numerous occasions and it almost invariably happens when any sort of discussion about minorities comes up.
On August 23 2016 04:41 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: im gonna sound like an intersectionality-thumping MRA-dumbass feminist or something but its important to remember that the masculine model pigeonholes men in politics as well to acting a certain way
at the same time a lot of that masculine model is genuinely meritorious (being bold, assertive, commanding, etc) so yea its sad that women r expected by a lot of men to not be that way
boldness is a virtue and women in a lot of cultures are pigeonholed into the opposite, meekness and submissiveness
Given how well boldness functions in international diplomacy I have no problem replacing it with a little meekness. I don't really know how you can look at world history and conclude that more boldness is what we need
there's different approaches to boldness
i'd label the dichotomy i think you're hinting at selfishness vs considerateness rather than boldness vs meekness
This is just stupid. He's called so many people that regardless of gender
I can't say I've seen examples. On the other hand we could trot out a lot of examples of him using this type of language with females.
It literally became a meme from him calling his male primary opponents 'a mess' for months
Most notably Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz
You just aren't trying very hard to find examples that would contradict what you want to believe, which is just human nature
I did various google searches and came up empty. Can you provide proof? And there's still the issue of the rest of the language Trump has used in regards to specific females he's exacting revenge on.
Yea I'll google 'jeb is a mess' or 'ted is a mess'
It's hard to find an isolated source all I can find are meme videos because it's been used so often by Trump in reference to males. Hence why I find it so stupid that you think it's an instance of sexism.
This has been around for months and the second he calls a female a 'mess' it's now sexism according to you?
On August 23 2016 04:41 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: im gonna sound like an intersectionality-thumping MRA-dumbass feminist or something but its important to remember that the masculine model pigeonholes men in politics as well to acting a certain way
at the same time a lot of that masculine model is genuinely meritorious (being bold, assertive, commanding, etc) so yea its sad that women r expected by a lot of men to not be that way
boldness is a virtue and women in a lot of cultures are pigeonholed into the opposite, meekness and submissiveness
No argument from me there. Where MRAs lose me is not that gender relations are far more complicated than men privileged/women oppressed but rather that they seem to use that only as a way of distracting away from issues feminists talk about to maintain the status quo. If MRAs were actually talking about fucked up gender roles and expectations from a male perspective and trying to change how society views gender they'd be allied with feminists against conventional society. It sucks. Genuine example of female privilege, men don't have a good movement to talk about this shit and not enough of a voice within the movement that exists.
On August 23 2016 04:45 Kickstart wrote: Isn't the point to try and get people who are similar to you in some way on your side? How is this any different than a politician playing the faith card or saying they have such and such values. If anything playing 'the woman card' is rather smart since that is 50% of the population. Sure you might alienate some small portion of men who have a problem with someone appealing to something that doesn't at all encompass them, but so what. Seems that these are the same people who come up with piffle such as 'such and such candidate spoke Spanish to appeal to the Hispanic vote' and get upset about it. News flash, there are people out there with different values, identities, and experiences from yours, and there is nothing wrong with appealing to that.....
'You should vote for me and not him because I'm a female and he's a male'
Clinton does not say this. You may see it as her saying that, but it is not what she says.
regardless of the technical accuracy of that claim specifically, it'd be quite disingenuous to claim that she doesn't play up her status as the first viable female candidate
Personally, I would rather discussion specific statements by Clinton over the hyperbolic summaries of those statements. It is easier to discuss the points when we are not arguing over how someone recalls those statements at the time.
in what world are these elements of her campaign NOT playing up her gender?
im not even against celebrating her victory as a symbolic one for women's rights, but why is she the one doing it herself?
but yea kwark makes decent points about why this is all right and ok idk its still not something that completely sits well with me
There's truth to what Kwark says.
The problem is that in an ideal world, we already have equal rights for everyone and the default position should in fact be gender/race neutral. The argument from Kwark is that it's not, and the 'identity politics' criticized by many are necessary to protected marginalized groups.
I don't know if Kwark thinks that this sort of thing will always be necessary. Is it possible to have a neutral status quo? Or by default, is the status quo always beneficial to one group at the expense of marginalizing all others.
I'd say it's problematic because just because you belong to a 'marginalized group', like women, doesn't mean you're actually one of the people suffering from the marginalization. I think you can be a woman who hasn't really suffered at all from marginalization in this country due to the fact that you are a woman. In fact, I think it's even possible that in some cases the scales have reversed. But then in a lot situations, the problem of marginalization is very real and still exists. But the nature of the problem, or how to solve it, isn't very well understood by most people leading to a huge variety of issues.
I think it's a very complex issue with a lot of gears in play and a lot of things at stake.
On August 23 2016 04:10 Doodsmack wrote: If you're going to consider sexism as part of your decision it becomes clear that Trump issues sexist statements with malicious intent. Just this morning he called a female a "mess", which we could pretend is neutral but then we're faced with the fact that he doesn't use that kind of language with males. Hillary using the "gender card" is only sexist if you construct an abstract argument.
This is just stupid. He's called so many people that regardless of gender
The knee-jerk reaction to aggressively downplay the experiences of minority groups or demonize those who would point out any sort of unfair treatment is foreign to me.
No one here is doing that.
I was rather careful to not accuse anyone in the current discussion of doing so. But I've seen it happen in this thread on numerous occasions and it almost invariably happens when any sort of discussion about minorities comes up.
That's fair. I just think the issue is with how often people have made things into issues of sexism/racism that are not actually issues of sexism of racism. It's diluted the meaning of the term so much that you can't really blame people for having such a skeptical knee-jerk reaction to it at this point.
You bullshit cry wolf enough times and people just stop believing it. It's a real problem because when the wolf actually shows up, people have been conditioned to be so jaded about it that it doesn't get the proper response it deserves.
perfect example is Doodsmack crying 'sexism' over Trump calling someone a mess because they happen to be a woman when he's used that as a means to insult males for months now
This is just stupid. He's called so many people that regardless of gender
I can't say I've seen examples. On the other hand we could trot out a lot of examples of him using this type of language with females.
It literally became a meme from him calling his male primary opponents 'a mess' for months
Most notably Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz
You just aren't trying very hard to find examples that would contradict what you want to believe, which is just human nature
I did various google searches and came up empty. Can you provide proof? And there's still the issue of the rest of the language Trump has used in regards to specific females he's exacting revenge on.
Yea I'll google 'jeb is a mess' or 'ted is a mess'
It's hard to find an isolated source all I can find are meme videos because it's been used so often by Trump in reference to males. Hence why I find it so stupid that you think it's an instance of sexism.
This has been around for months and the second he calls a female a 'mess' it's now sexism according to you?
white knighting 101
Are you sure that's not a mashed up video? Did Trump say "Jeb is a mess"? Compare him saying "Jeb is a mess" and "Jeb is a waste" in that video. Notice how the word "Jeb" sounds exactly the same.
Are you sure you're not only seeing "meme videos" because they're all the same thing and they originated from a mashup on r/The_Donald?
On August 23 2016 04:41 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: im gonna sound like an intersectionality-thumping MRA-dumbass feminist or something but its important to remember that the masculine model pigeonholes men in politics as well to acting a certain way
at the same time a lot of that masculine model is genuinely meritorious (being bold, assertive, commanding, etc) so yea its sad that women r expected by a lot of men to not be that way
boldness is a virtue and women in a lot of cultures are pigeonholed into the opposite, meekness and submissiveness
Given how well boldness functions in international diplomacy I have no problem replacing it with a little meekness. I don't really know how you can look at world history and conclude that more boldness is what we need
there's different approaches to boldness
i'd label the dichotomy i think you're hinting at selfishness vs considerateness rather than boldness vs meekness
or maybe brashness vs caution
I think what people are meaning when they are falsely demanding strength nowadays is that they want immediate control. You can see this with the calls for Trump's wall. Or "uncontrolled immigration". The question concerning immigration is almost never "how will it influence us in a few decades and what have experts to say on the topic", but "is it controlled?".
People don't really want strength in leaders nowadays but simply action for action's sake because they can't accept any more that some problems don't have immediate solutions. And that's a fairly dangerous mindset to have especially on the international stage where precaution is fairly important.
On August 23 2016 04:41 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: im gonna sound like an intersectionality-thumping MRA-dumbass feminist or something but its important to remember that the masculine model pigeonholes men in politics as well to acting a certain way
at the same time a lot of that masculine model is genuinely meritorious (being bold, assertive, commanding, etc) so yea its sad that women r expected by a lot of men to not be that way
boldness is a virtue and women in a lot of cultures are pigeonholed into the opposite, meekness and submissiveness
Given how well boldness functions in international diplomacy I have no problem replacing it with a little meekness. I don't really know how you can look at world history and conclude that more boldness is what we need
there's different approaches to boldness
i'd label the dichotomy i think you're hinting at selfishness vs considerateness rather than boldness vs meekness
or maybe brashness vs caution
I think what people are meaning when they are falsely demanding strength nowadays is that they want immediate control. You can see this with the calls for Trump's wall. Or "uncontrolled immigration". The question concerning immigration is almost never "how will it influence us in a few decades and what have experts to say on the topic", but "is it controlled?".
People don't really want strength in leaders nowadays but simply action for action's sake because they can't accept any more that some problems don't have immediate solutions. And that's a fairly dangerous mindset to have especially on the international stage where precaution is fairly important.
yea i think this is quite an important point
the restlessness with which people demand improvement from their governments is quite disconcerting
i dont think its a new problem at all though... when things go bad, it feels like people very rarely have the patience to go "rocking the boat violently will probably make this worse, lets calm down"
EPT
![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/qKys2/fff44686a5.png)
![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/qKywY/4235777f04.png)
