|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 November 13 2016 02:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 01:58 zlefin wrote:
even if it's a public ballot you're speculating on the motives of the voters, true, knowing their vote is a necessary but insufficient condition for assessing a voter's motives. so if you don't know how they voted you can't yap away about what "core trump supporters" motives are. you don't even know who they voted for or if they even voted.
that doens't quite follow.
you may not be able to identify WHO is a core trump supporter.
But you know that he did in fact receive votes, so there must exist trump supporters.
You can also ask them/rely on reports and assessments; the most ardent supporters tend to be more vocal so they're a bit easier to find (though the crazies are also vocal). some of them have stated their reasons and movites for doing so. those can of course be questioned and doubted.
By definition, the core trump supporters voted trump.
|
Canada16700 Posts
and you are speculating on who those people are. and then you are speculating on their motives. of course you can then claim the "core" is some group of 350 people who fit your recipe and so this goes no where.
|
Level 1 - born traits:
- Country that you were born in
- Your gender
- Your skin color/race
- Your family
- Genetical handicaps
Basically things you had zero control of and you cannot change.
These things influence you but we should be most tolerant about any of these traits, especially if it is concerning employment or some public group membership.
In my opinion in this matter we have achieved a big progress in the developed countries and never in the history we have people less discriminated base on these traits.
The mainstream media and certain ideological groups however still keep pushing these issues even when there is nothing to find.
Level 2 - personal beliefs:
- Religion
- Main political view (e.g. economical - right/left, social - conservative/liberal)
- Globalism
- Open Borders/multiculturalism
- Man-made climate change (~big impact on)
- Pro abortions/pro life
- Open borders
- Belief that white men are the problem of society
- Belief that men are more capable politicians then women
- Belief that cats have 9 lives
...
So although many of these were strongly affected by your family, culture, friends...
The beliefs actually evolve, you can change your belief many times throughout your life.
You can actively participate to shape your beliefs by interacting with different people, traveling, reading, watching TV, browsing internet or just by thinking alone.
The problem is many people believe they are 100% right and that the others are 100% wrong.
This is actually what is happening for the most part in the western world.
The solution is to discuss and listen to each other more.
Saying I'm right you are wrong gg is NOT a discussion.
Most of the time you will find that you do not agree with the other person 100% however you will find at least a few topics on which you can agree on with a completely random person.
For example you are a hardcore CO2 major impact on climate change and the other person doesn't think CO2 can really do that.
Rather than calling each out an idiot right away you can maybe still agree that smog is a giant problem or that you both don't like when rainforests are being destroyed.
Try to find what you have in common, but this goes both ways, if one side refuses to communicate it's game over.
Level 3 - personal behavior:
- Your actions - thing you actually do(not just say)
- The words you use (athough I'm a fan of free speech and not PC; there are many situations in life where you need to use your words correctly)
- The tone you use
- Empathy
- Openness
- Tolerance
...
This list is pretty vague but these are the things that matter the most.
You have 100% control over this no excuses.
The problem nowadays is that the people feel they have some moral highground based on what they believe in e.g. I'm for open borders I'm a better person that you xenophobes.
Or the so called oppressed groups like black people, lesbians because in the past they did not have the privileges now they feel like they have the moral highground.
Now from this moral highground they are bashing anyone who does not fit into your ideology and that's a problem on Level 3 a problem with human behavior, something you can work on.
But the respect goes both ways and the other side does not like to be treated this way so they retaliate.
|
On November 13 2016 02:13 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 02:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 13 2016 01:58 zlefin wrote:
even if it's a public ballot you're speculating on the motives of the voters, true, knowing their vote is a necessary but insufficient condition for assessing a voter's motives. so if you don't know how they voted you can't yap away about what "core trump supporters" motives are. you don't even know who they voted for or if they even voted. that doens't quite follow. you may not be able to identify WHO is a core trump supporter. But you know that he did in fact receive votes, so there must exist trump supporters. You can also ask them/rely on reports and assessments; the most ardent supporters tend to be more vocal so they're a bit easier to find (though the crazies are also vocal). some of them have stated their reasons and movites for doing so. those can of course be questioned and doubted. By definition, the core trump supporters voted trump.
If you could ask them and rely on reports and assessments, the polls would've been right and Hillary would have become president. The fact that they lied to the people doing the asking, and refused to answer questions posed to them, is the prominent facet of this election people are just coming to terms with (or not coming to terms with).
|
On November 13 2016 01:58 zlefin wrote:
I wonder if we should add political affilitation to the list of things covered by the hate crimes statutes. opinions on that?
I don't see why our hate crime statues are based on lists of 'protected' attributes in the first place.
|
Canada16700 Posts
On November 13 2016 02:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 02:13 zlefin wrote:On November 13 2016 02:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 13 2016 01:58 zlefin wrote:
even if it's a public ballot you're speculating on the motives of the voters, true, knowing their vote is a necessary but insufficient condition for assessing a voter's motives. so if you don't know how they voted you can't yap away about what "core trump supporters" motives are. you don't even know who they voted for or if they even voted. that doens't quite follow. you may not be able to identify WHO is a core trump supporter. But you know that he did in fact receive votes, so there must exist trump supporters. You can also ask them/rely on reports and assessments; the most ardent supporters tend to be more vocal so they're a bit easier to find (though the crazies are also vocal). some of them have stated their reasons and movites for doing so. those can of course be questioned and doubted. By definition, the core trump supporters voted trump. If you could ask them and rely on reports and assessments, the polls would've been right and Hillary would have become president. The fact that they lied to the people doing the asking, and refused to answer questions posed to them, is the prominent facet of this election people are just coming to terms with (or not coming to terms with).
imo, most adults are liars. this increases the difficulty in assessing motive.
|
On November 13 2016 02:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 02:13 zlefin wrote:On November 13 2016 02:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 13 2016 01:58 zlefin wrote:
even if it's a public ballot you're speculating on the motives of the voters, true, knowing their vote is a necessary but insufficient condition for assessing a voter's motives. so if you don't know how they voted you can't yap away about what "core trump supporters" motives are. you don't even know who they voted for or if they even voted. that doens't quite follow. you may not be able to identify WHO is a core trump supporter. But you know that he did in fact receive votes, so there must exist trump supporters. You can also ask them/rely on reports and assessments; the most ardent supporters tend to be more vocal so they're a bit easier to find (though the crazies are also vocal). some of them have stated their reasons and movites for doing so. those can of course be questioned and doubted. By definition, the core trump supporters voted trump. If you could ask them and rely on reports and assessments, the polls would've been right and Hillary would have become president. The fact that they lied to the people doing the asking, and refused to answer questions posed to them, is the prominent facet of this election people are just coming to terms with (or not coming to terms with).
the polls were not entirely accurate; they were'nt entirely wrong either. it's not like they're off by 20%.
reports and assessmenets are inaccurate, not entirely useless.
also, a lot of polling numbers were changing right at the end when there's not enough tim to get good data in.
|
Canada16700 Posts
|
On November 13 2016 02:22 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 01:58 zlefin wrote:
I wonder if we should add political affilitation to the list of things covered by the hate crimes statutes. opinions on that? I don't see why our hate crime statues are based on lists of 'protected' attributes in the first place.
how would you alternately have them run?
|
On November 13 2016 02:10 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 01:47 Doodsmack wrote:On November 13 2016 01:23 travis wrote:On November 13 2016 01:10 Doodsmack wrote:
Also have we talked about how "We don't have a country anymore" is an inherently racist statement? It's saying look at all these Mexicans. "Take our country back" means take it back from the brown skinned people who have been in the White House and going on welfare and crossing the border and suicide bombing and killing each other in gang warfare and having babies with no father around. That's the rallying cry of the core Trump electorate - "We don't have a country anymore" and "Take our country back". What are you basing this interpretation on? I would take it to mean "we aren't being represented, no one is looking out for our interests". "We don't have a country anymore" is very different from "we aren't being represented". It can just as well be about culture. Making it about race is your own interpretation nothing more.
I went to a high school in rural PA with 1/4 Hispanics. And I never felt the need to react to them or care. These days, the town is nice and white, people go to McDonald's and have iPhones, and it's all good. So I personally don't take seriously the "culture" excuse.
|
On November 13 2016 02:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 02:13 zlefin wrote:On November 13 2016 02:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 13 2016 01:58 zlefin wrote:
even if it's a public ballot you're speculating on the motives of the voters, true, knowing their vote is a necessary but insufficient condition for assessing a voter's motives. so if you don't know how they voted you can't yap away about what "core trump supporters" motives are. you don't even know who they voted for or if they even voted. that doens't quite follow. you may not be able to identify WHO is a core trump supporter. But you know that he did in fact receive votes, so there must exist trump supporters. You can also ask them/rely on reports and assessments; the most ardent supporters tend to be more vocal so they're a bit easier to find (though the crazies are also vocal). some of them have stated their reasons and movites for doing so. those can of course be questioned and doubted. By definition, the core trump supporters voted trump. If you could ask them and rely on reports and assessments, the polls would've been right and Hillary would have become president. The fact that they lied to the people doing the asking, and refused to answer questions posed to them, is the prominent facet of this election people are just coming to terms with (or not coming to terms with).
I'm not sure lying is the main reason the polls were off or we wouldn't have seen so many states where Clinton outperformed her polls being blue; the "shy Trump effect" and lying would logically be more prominent in those states. I would chalk it up to a lot of truthful people deciding late in the game or legitimately reconsidering their Johnson/undecided vote when Trump avoided feeding their doubts post second-debate.
Of course, we'll never really know.
|
Canada16700 Posts
On November 13 2016 02:25 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 02:19 Danglars wrote:On November 13 2016 02:13 zlefin wrote:On November 13 2016 02:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 13 2016 01:58 zlefin wrote:
even if it's a public ballot you're speculating on the motives of the voters, true, knowing their vote is a necessary but insufficient condition for assessing a voter's motives. so if you don't know how they voted you can't yap away about what "core trump supporters" motives are. you don't even know who they voted for or if they even voted. that doens't quite follow. you may not be able to identify WHO is a core trump supporter. But you know that he did in fact receive votes, so there must exist trump supporters. You can also ask them/rely on reports and assessments; the most ardent supporters tend to be more vocal so they're a bit easier to find (though the crazies are also vocal). some of them have stated their reasons and movites for doing so. those can of course be questioned and doubted. By definition, the core trump supporters voted trump. If you could ask them and rely on reports and assessments, the polls would've been right and Hillary would have become president. The fact that they lied to the people doing the asking, and refused to answer questions posed to them, is the prominent facet of this election people are just coming to terms with (or not coming to terms with). the polls were not entirely accurate; they were'nt entirely wrong either. it's not like they're off by 20%. reports and assessmenets are inaccurate, not entirely useless. also, a lot of polling numbers were changing right at the end when there's not enough tim to get good data in.
and when you add 3 layers of speculative abstraction on top of something that is not 100% you're like a weather man trying to tell me if its going to rain on my garden exactly 17 days from now.
On November 13 2016 02:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 02:19 Danglars wrote:On November 13 2016 02:13 zlefin wrote:On November 13 2016 02:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 13 2016 01:58 zlefin wrote:
even if it's a public ballot you're speculating on the motives of the voters, true, knowing their vote is a necessary but insufficient condition for assessing a voter's motives. so if you don't know how they voted you can't yap away about what "core trump supporters" motives are. you don't even know who they voted for or if they even voted. that doens't quite follow. you may not be able to identify WHO is a core trump supporter. But you know that he did in fact receive votes, so there must exist trump supporters. You can also ask them/rely on reports and assessments; the most ardent supporters tend to be more vocal so they're a bit easier to find (though the crazies are also vocal). some of them have stated their reasons and movites for doing so. those can of course be questioned and doubted. By definition, the core trump supporters voted trump. If you could ask them and rely on reports and assessments, the polls would've been right and Hillary would have become president. The fact that they lied to the people doing the asking, and refused to answer questions posed to them, is the prominent facet of this election people are just coming to terms with (or not coming to terms with). I'm not sure lying is the main reason the polls were off or we wouldn't have seen so many states where Clinton outperformed her polls being blue; the "shy Trump effect" and lying would logically be more prominent in those states. I would chalk it up to a lot of truthful people deciding late in the game or legitimately reconsidering their Johnson/undecided vote when Trump avoided feeding their doubts post second-debate. Of course, we'll never really know.
nope , but we can start just making stuff up about what "the other side" "thinks and feelts" so we can act superior though.
|
On November 13 2016 02:34 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 02:25 zlefin wrote:On November 13 2016 02:19 Danglars wrote:On November 13 2016 02:13 zlefin wrote:On November 13 2016 02:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 13 2016 01:58 zlefin wrote:
even if it's a public ballot you're speculating on the motives of the voters, true, knowing their vote is a necessary but insufficient condition for assessing a voter's motives. so if you don't know how they voted you can't yap away about what "core trump supporters" motives are. you don't even know who they voted for or if they even voted. that doens't quite follow. you may not be able to identify WHO is a core trump supporter. But you know that he did in fact receive votes, so there must exist trump supporters. You can also ask them/rely on reports and assessments; the most ardent supporters tend to be more vocal so they're a bit easier to find (though the crazies are also vocal). some of them have stated their reasons and movites for doing so. those can of course be questioned and doubted. By definition, the core trump supporters voted trump. If you could ask them and rely on reports and assessments, the polls would've been right and Hillary would have become president. The fact that they lied to the people doing the asking, and refused to answer questions posed to them, is the prominent facet of this election people are just coming to terms with (or not coming to terms with). the polls were not entirely accurate; they were'nt entirely wrong either. it's not like they're off by 20%. reports and assessmenets are inaccurate, not entirely useless. also, a lot of polling numbers were changing right at the end when there's not enough tim to get good data in. and when you add 3 layers of speculative abstraction on top of something that is not 100% you're like a weather man trying to tell me if its going to rain on my garden exactly 17 days from now.
that is simply not applicable here; the degree of chaos in weather prediction would make such a thing far less clear than what can reasonably be ascertained of voter motivations.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
It's really quite hard to understand why people care about culture when you yourself don't. It's like trying to explain to a high school or college dropout why a college education is important; you really have to see it to understand. While it certainly isn't fair to paint with a broad brush, I will note that on average, I have seen that conservatives care more about the issue there than liberals, and an even more striking divide is Europeans vs. Americans (though in both cases there are many, many counterexamples). This "there ain't no culture" issue often is just talking from a position of ignorance. It really does matter to a lot of people.
|
There were lots of people who predicted Trump. The people who didn't simply chose to stay in the bubble and laugh at them  .
|
Canada16700 Posts
On November 13 2016 02:36 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 02:34 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 13 2016 02:25 zlefin wrote:On November 13 2016 02:19 Danglars wrote:On November 13 2016 02:13 zlefin wrote:On November 13 2016 02:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 13 2016 01:58 zlefin wrote:
even if it's a public ballot you're speculating on the motives of the voters, true, knowing their vote is a necessary but insufficient condition for assessing a voter's motives. so if you don't know how they voted you can't yap away about what "core trump supporters" motives are. you don't even know who they voted for or if they even voted. that doens't quite follow. you may not be able to identify WHO is a core trump supporter. But you know that he did in fact receive votes, so there must exist trump supporters. You can also ask them/rely on reports and assessments; the most ardent supporters tend to be more vocal so they're a bit easier to find (though the crazies are also vocal). some of them have stated their reasons and movites for doing so. those can of course be questioned and doubted. By definition, the core trump supporters voted trump. If you could ask them and rely on reports and assessments, the polls would've been right and Hillary would have become president. The fact that they lied to the people doing the asking, and refused to answer questions posed to them, is the prominent facet of this election people are just coming to terms with (or not coming to terms with). the polls were not entirely accurate; they were'nt entirely wrong either. it's not like they're off by 20%. reports and assessmenets are inaccurate, not entirely useless. also, a lot of polling numbers were changing right at the end when there's not enough tim to get good data in. and when you add 3 layers of speculative abstraction on top of something that is not 100% you're like a weather man trying to tell me if its going to rain on my garden exactly 17 days from now. that is simply not applicable here; the degree of chaos in weather prediction would make such a thing far less clear than what can reasonably be ascertained of voter motivations.
the human animal is as unpredictable as it gets. and that's just behaviour... never mind what a human thinks and feels... which is a whole other layer of chaos.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 13 2016 02:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 02:19 Danglars wrote:On November 13 2016 02:13 zlefin wrote:On November 13 2016 02:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 13 2016 01:58 zlefin wrote:
even if it's a public ballot you're speculating on the motives of the voters, true, knowing their vote is a necessary but insufficient condition for assessing a voter's motives. so if you don't know how they voted you can't yap away about what "core trump supporters" motives are. you don't even know who they voted for or if they even voted. that doens't quite follow. you may not be able to identify WHO is a core trump supporter. But you know that he did in fact receive votes, so there must exist trump supporters. You can also ask them/rely on reports and assessments; the most ardent supporters tend to be more vocal so they're a bit easier to find (though the crazies are also vocal). some of them have stated their reasons and movites for doing so. those can of course be questioned and doubted. By definition, the core trump supporters voted trump. If you could ask them and rely on reports and assessments, the polls would've been right and Hillary would have become president. The fact that they lied to the people doing the asking, and refused to answer questions posed to them, is the prominent facet of this election people are just coming to terms with (or not coming to terms with). I'm not sure lying is the main reason the polls were off or we wouldn't have seen so many states where Clinton outperformed her polls being blue; the "shy Trump effect" and lying would logically be more prominent in those states. I would chalk it up to a lot of truthful people deciding late in the game or legitimately reconsidering their Johnson/undecided vote when Trump avoided feeding their doubts post second-debate. Of course, we'll never really know.
My angle, as I've repeated often enough, is that undecideds went Trump, there were a lot of them, and that trade plus trust issues eroded her support enough to let Trump win.
|
On November 13 2016 02:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 02:36 zlefin wrote:On November 13 2016 02:34 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 13 2016 02:25 zlefin wrote:On November 13 2016 02:19 Danglars wrote:On November 13 2016 02:13 zlefin wrote:On November 13 2016 02:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 13 2016 01:58 zlefin wrote:
even if it's a public ballot you're speculating on the motives of the voters, true, knowing their vote is a necessary but insufficient condition for assessing a voter's motives. so if you don't know how they voted you can't yap away about what "core trump supporters" motives are. you don't even know who they voted for or if they even voted. that doens't quite follow. you may not be able to identify WHO is a core trump supporter. But you know that he did in fact receive votes, so there must exist trump supporters. You can also ask them/rely on reports and assessments; the most ardent supporters tend to be more vocal so they're a bit easier to find (though the crazies are also vocal). some of them have stated their reasons and movites for doing so. those can of course be questioned and doubted. By definition, the core trump supporters voted trump. If you could ask them and rely on reports and assessments, the polls would've been right and Hillary would have become president. The fact that they lied to the people doing the asking, and refused to answer questions posed to them, is the prominent facet of this election people are just coming to terms with (or not coming to terms with). the polls were not entirely accurate; they were'nt entirely wrong either. it's not like they're off by 20%. reports and assessmenets are inaccurate, not entirely useless. also, a lot of polling numbers were changing right at the end when there's not enough tim to get good data in. and when you add 3 layers of speculative abstraction on top of something that is not 100% you're like a weather man trying to tell me if its going to rain on my garden exactly 17 days from now. that is simply not applicable here; the degree of chaos in weather prediction would make such a thing far less clear than what can reasonably be ascertained of voter motivations. the human animal is as unpredictable as it gets.
while an amusing statement, it is simply not true from an empirical standpoint. If you refuse to accept that then there is no common ground for further discussion.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 13 2016 02:37 nafta wrote:There were lots of people who predicted Trump. The people who didn't simply chose to stay in the bubble and laugh at them .
Meh, by all indications it was close but Clinton was favored. I would have taken 1:7 odds on Trump but "fair odds" of victory were no more than a third.
|
Canada16700 Posts
On November 13 2016 02:40 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 02:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 13 2016 02:36 zlefin wrote:On November 13 2016 02:34 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 13 2016 02:25 zlefin wrote:On November 13 2016 02:19 Danglars wrote:On November 13 2016 02:13 zlefin wrote:On November 13 2016 02:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 13 2016 01:58 zlefin wrote:
even if it's a public ballot you're speculating on the motives of the voters, true, knowing their vote is a necessary but insufficient condition for assessing a voter's motives. so if you don't know how they voted you can't yap away about what "core trump supporters" motives are. you don't even know who they voted for or if they even voted. that doens't quite follow. you may not be able to identify WHO is a core trump supporter. But you know that he did in fact receive votes, so there must exist trump supporters. You can also ask them/rely on reports and assessments; the most ardent supporters tend to be more vocal so they're a bit easier to find (though the crazies are also vocal). some of them have stated their reasons and movites for doing so. those can of course be questioned and doubted. By definition, the core trump supporters voted trump. If you could ask them and rely on reports and assessments, the polls would've been right and Hillary would have become president. The fact that they lied to the people doing the asking, and refused to answer questions posed to them, is the prominent facet of this election people are just coming to terms with (or not coming to terms with). the polls were not entirely accurate; they were'nt entirely wrong either. it's not like they're off by 20%. reports and assessmenets are inaccurate, not entirely useless. also, a lot of polling numbers were changing right at the end when there's not enough tim to get good data in. and when you add 3 layers of speculative abstraction on top of something that is not 100% you're like a weather man trying to tell me if its going to rain on my garden exactly 17 days from now. that is simply not applicable here; the degree of chaos in weather prediction would make such a thing far less clear than what can reasonably be ascertained of voter motivations. the human animal is as unpredictable as it gets. while an amusing statement, it is simply not true from an empirical standpoint. If you refuse to accept that then there is no common ground for further discussion.
i edited to include thinking and feeling because if you are going to assess motive you need to get that deep. if you can predict that then you probably make a lot more money than i do.
no further discussion needed.
on a side note about the issue we're discussing: my SC2 2v2 partner is a day trader ; the morning after the election she bought some stock in a company that makes tazers, body armour and body cameras and its up 23% in 3 days. LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
