|
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 15 2016 07:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 06:29 TanGeng wrote:On November 15 2016 06:23 farvacola wrote:
The self-evidence of the truth underpinning a leftist approach to civil rights is not really at issue here, though maybe I'm misunderstanding Cosmic. Instead, I think the issue comes down to using issue-based signposts as a means of ascertaining character. I think this is the morality based approach to issues. Like slavery, abortion, religion, and racism are morality issues where you can be beyond the pale for being on the wrong side of issues, we do have new morality issues by the left. But instead of being framed as morality issues, there is shift to "intelligence" "scientific" or other angles to what is at its core moral judgements. Just two pages ago we had a TL example of someone claiming "smart people have to believe this". It's hard to even have a conversation when there is very little attempt to listen or understand. Indeed. How can you even argue the moral merits if the other side asserts you're either (1) too dumb to understand you're arguing against science or (2) too clingy to your traditions to ever give fair hearing to unquestionable science? That's the kind of dismissiveness that drives people, reluctantly, into Trump's camp. At least you can start with calling ten more issues up for debate, and not get talked down to like Privilege Class is back in session. If dialogue has to go back to the ballot box for five to ten years, so be it. Whatever it takes to return the other side to the negotiating table they left when declaring a new era of enlightened social justice supported by demographic destiny.
People aren't driven reluctantly into Trump's camp, that's just an excuse the more smart among them have for putting their support behind an incompetent. People choose Trump because of the things he said on the campaign trail.
|
On November 15 2016 07:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 06:29 TanGeng wrote:On November 15 2016 06:23 farvacola wrote:
The self-evidence of the truth underpinning a leftist approach to civil rights is not really at issue here, though maybe I'm misunderstanding Cosmic. Instead, I think the issue comes down to using issue-based signposts as a means of ascertaining character. I think this is the morality based approach to issues. Like slavery, abortion, religion, and racism are morality issues where you can be beyond the pale for being on the wrong side of issues, we do have new morality issues by the left. But instead of being framed as morality issues, there is shift to "intelligence" "scientific" or other angles to what is at its core moral judgements. Just two pages ago we had a TL example of someone claiming "smart people have to believe this". It's hard to even have a conversation when there is very little attempt to listen or understand. Indeed. How can you even argue the moral merits if the other side asserts you're either (1) too dumb to understand you're arguing against science or (2) too clingy to your traditions to ever give fair hearing to unquestionable science? That's the kind of dismissiveness that drives people, reluctantly, into Trump's camp. At least you can start with calling ten more issues up for debate, and not get talked down to like Privilege Class is back in session. If dialogue has to go back to the ballot box for five to ten years, so be it. Whatever it takes to return the other side to the negotiating table they left when declaring a new era of enlightened social justice supported by demographic destiny.
You're going to be waiting a long time if you think any democratic losses are going to cause them to rethink social/moral issues. They're going to do things like put Keith Ellison as chair, adopt messages more like Bernie's, and double down on pushing forward social progress on top of more middle class friendly politicians & policies.
|
United States15275 Posts
On November 15 2016 06:15 Trainrunnef wrote:
I'm pretty sure any claim of Trump's incompetence is directed more at the fact that he didn't seem to grasp the gravitas of the position by
A) Not preparing for any of the debates (his words not mine)
B) Not being well versed in foreign policy beyond building a wall, and barring immigration from muslim countries
C) Lying with extreme frequency about the most minute of topics
D) Contradicting himself whether he was on video or audio tape
All those things are true, but that's not my point.
On November 15 2016 06:29 Blisse wrote:
Well I think obviously if you can find middle ground with a person, it's much easier to concede flaws if it looks like they wanted to work on them. The problem is that the left really doesn't like Trump and his views, and really don't think he's capable of holding office. If he can make himself look better by pushing left-popular agendas like expanding the space program and reversing his views on same-sex marriage and Muslim immigration and the wall, I'd like to think the left would have to concede their protesting.
It might not help if Trump doesn't actually stop the Republican House and Senate from passing annoying things, but the left would be able to relate to Trump, and would get angry at him for other reasons.
I'm suggesting that many members of the Left can't distinguish between the two (and don't want to). Trump is not qualified or prepared to be President of the United States and many of the views he has spouted doing his campaign are morally reprehensible. But competence in a field is separate from moral character. Henry Kissinger and Tiberius Julius Caesar were excellent statesmen and horrible human beings simultaneously.
On November 15 2016 06:29 Blisse wrote:
However, it would still be absolutely insane that a candidate could run with that kind of inflammatory platform and win, and it's going to screw over politicians for an even long time ("hey the president is just going to say one thing and do another").
I'd say people already believe that about politicians, which is Trump didn't bother to give a coherent message besides one of outrage. Trust in government in this country is so low that people already assume politicians are lying to their faces and abusing their power.
On November 15 2016 06:10 Logo wrote:I mean I don't really know the value of the question? A lot of people are protesting the anti-equality platforms Trump leveraged in the campaign more so than incompetence. And any perception of incompetence probably has more to do with Trump's ridiculous statements (see hair spray & climate change), speaking style, on inability to follow through complete thoughts when speaking off the cuff. Even so the answer is probably yes as people protest all sorts of things... http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/president-protests-history/ I doubt the protests would be even a fraction as large though.
I think the question is relevant in three ways:
- No matter how justified the protests are by the First Amendment, they seem more like products of being butthurt by losing what should've been a slam dunk election to a shmuck. Complaints are being laid squarely at Trump's feet instead of the incompetence of the Democratic Party, the universal distrust that allowed him to use "I'm not a politician" as a selling point, and the news media that further polarized the election and acted as free advertising for Trump. Denouncing him alone changes nothing, even if it addresses his policies.
- If people are encouraged to see voting and candidates as extensions of their own personal beliefs, that doesn't bode well for the future. Democracy is not merely about the will of the people; it assumes the people are informed enough to make good choices instead of ones that merely pander to their views.
- I'd argue that such an attitude cost the Democrats the election and is the biggest obstacle to any meaningful change within the party.
|
On November 15 2016 06:29 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 06:23 farvacola wrote:
The self-evidence of the truth underpinning a leftist approach to civil rights is not really at issue here, though maybe I'm misunderstanding Cosmic. Instead, I think the issue comes down to using issue-based signposts as a means of ascertaining character. I think this is the morality based approach to issues. Like slavery, abortion, religion, and racism are morality issues where you can be beyond the pale for being on the wrong side of issues, we do have new morality issues by the left. But instead of being framed as morality issues, there is shift to "intelligence" "scientific" or other angles to what is at its core moral judgements. Just two pages ago we had a TL example of someone claiming "smart people have to believe this". It's hard to even have a conversation when there is very little attempt to listen or understand.
The shift that you're making is not really warranted. Most of the time, we are having factual discussions rather than moral ones. If the other camp is ignoring facts, and I'm trying to reach it, I'm going to try and reach it by bringing it back on the side of facts, not by accepting that they have a different point of view and that opinions are awesome. Now my opinion can be wrong, that's a given, I can be wrong about the facts and I generally have been, a lot, during my life. But that's going to be determined through a discussion. And if we have that discussion and I'm in the wrong, I don't want you to accept that I have a different point of view and respect that, I want you to show me that I'm wrong, so that I can be given the opportunity to be right instead.
|
On November 15 2016 07:16 CosmicSpiral wrote:I think the question is relevant in three ways: - No matter how justified the protests are by the First Amendment, they seem more like products of being butthurt by losing what should've been a slam dunk election to a shmuck. Complaints are being laid squarely at Trump's feet instead of the incompetence of the Democratic Party, the universal distrust that allowed him to use "I'm not a politician" as a selling point, and the news media that further polarized the election and acted as free advertising for Trump. Denouncing him alone changes nothing, even if it addresses his policies.
- If people are encouraged to see voting and candidates as extensions of their own personal beliefs, that doesn't bode well for the future. Democracy is not merely about the will of the people; it assumes the people are informed enough to make good choices instead of ones that merely pander to their views.
- I'd argue that such an attitude cost the Democrats the election and is the biggest obstacle to any meaningful change within the party.
Yes.
But there's a whole rash of legitimate reasons to be protesting Trump's victory besides being butthurt. It's disingenuous to assume everyone is doing it for the wrong reasons (even if some/many are), or that's only reason why they are doing it. People are butthurt every election and you don't see protests of these numbers, being a slam dunk one way or another shouldn't really change much in that respect in comparison to people seeing it as a challenge to a safe and respected existence of their peers.
That's the other thing about this whole moral talk, some morals are going to be flexible (even hotly contested ones like say the death penalty), but there are definitely going to be a set of morals you are going to see as not negotiable and in the left's case that's going to be equality for women and minorities which Trump structured his campaign as an almost direct opposition to (whether intentional or not, and whether or not he's a liar or not).
|
My view is that the Dems really lost control of the message and didn't appeal to the (white) working class. On one side, we got pulled farther left than I thought was smart by what I'll call the GH-wing. The message became stuff like $15/hr min wage, college education and such. That doesn't appeal to some blue collar white guy who isn't thinking about college for his kids and didn't go to college himself but feels/is left behind by globalization.
Then on the other hand, the message also was a repudiation of a lot of the discriminatory, socially regressive garbage coming from Trump and his supporters. Those combined ended up being distilled, especially through a rightwing lens, as "hey the Dems think ya'll are all racist and don't really care about you".
I'm very slightly encouraged by president-elect Trump, but I doubt he's going to bring the sort of economic change he;s promised. Though from the various anti-gay, muslim and minority things going on in the last few days, I think the deplorables are out of the basket.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 15 2016 07:19 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 06:29 TanGeng wrote:On November 15 2016 06:23 farvacola wrote:
The self-evidence of the truth underpinning a leftist approach to civil rights is not really at issue here, though maybe I'm misunderstanding Cosmic. Instead, I think the issue comes down to using issue-based signposts as a means of ascertaining character. I think this is the morality based approach to issues. Like slavery, abortion, religion, and racism are morality issues where you can be beyond the pale for being on the wrong side of issues, we do have new morality issues by the left. But instead of being framed as morality issues, there is shift to "intelligence" "scientific" or other angles to what is at its core moral judgements. Just two pages ago we had a TL example of someone claiming "smart people have to believe this". It's hard to even have a conversation when there is very little attempt to listen or understand. The shift that you're making is not really warranted. Most of the time, we are having factual discussions rather than moral ones. If the other camp is ignoring facts, and I'm trying to reach it, I'm going to try and reach it by bringing it back on the side of facts, not by accepting that they have a different point of view and that opinions are awesome. Now my opinion can be wrong, that's a given, I can be wrong about the facts and I generally have been, a lot, during my life. But that's going to be determined through a discussion. And if we have that discussion and I'm in the wrong, I don't want you to accept that I have a different point of view and respect that, I want you to show me that I'm wrong, so that I can be given the opportunity to be right instead.
I see two different approaches to discussing any issue.
The first is genuine discussion with some level of empathy and mutual understanding in the conversation. The moral foundations or value judgements can be different among people in the conversation, and the resulting conclusions can still be different, but at least there is a conversation.
The second is an attempt to talk with someone with an inflexible worldview with no attempt to understand anything that might originate from a different set of values or morality. With the religious, it is openly recognized as moral judgements. With the left and the intellectual elite, they may cover it under a layer of intellectual sophistry or scientific sophistry.
This group certainly won't appreciate a comparison to religious nuts, but an open discussion is as difficult among the two.
|
One thing that I mentioned that I was really going to hate if Trump wins is how his rabid I-told-you-so some of his supporters are going to be, which is what's happening now with Trump's alleged pro-gay stance. During his campaign he repeatedly says on tape that he's going to end protections for LBGTQs, and now that he's suddenly pro-gay, and now his fans are all hah-in-your-liberal-face about it. Regardless of whether I'm happy about the turnabout or angry about the supporters, this is such a ridiculous shit show.
yada yada it's really hard to repeal those policies, you shouldn't have believed him in the first place. yada yada well how about your presidential candidate doesn't say stupid random shit in the first place? yada yada he's not a politician he can say what he wants. such an awful shit show. -_- apologies for ranting.
|
On November 15 2016 07:53 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 07:19 Nebuchad wrote:On November 15 2016 06:29 TanGeng wrote:On November 15 2016 06:23 farvacola wrote:
The self-evidence of the truth underpinning a leftist approach to civil rights is not really at issue here, though maybe I'm misunderstanding Cosmic. Instead, I think the issue comes down to using issue-based signposts as a means of ascertaining character. I think this is the morality based approach to issues. Like slavery, abortion, religion, and racism are morality issues where you can be beyond the pale for being on the wrong side of issues, we do have new morality issues by the left. But instead of being framed as morality issues, there is shift to "intelligence" "scientific" or other angles to what is at its core moral judgements. Just two pages ago we had a TL example of someone claiming "smart people have to believe this". It's hard to even have a conversation when there is very little attempt to listen or understand. The shift that you're making is not really warranted. Most of the time, we are having factual discussions rather than moral ones. If the other camp is ignoring facts, and I'm trying to reach it, I'm going to try and reach it by bringing it back on the side of facts, not by accepting that they have a different point of view and that opinions are awesome. Now my opinion can be wrong, that's a given, I can be wrong about the facts and I generally have been, a lot, during my life. But that's going to be determined through a discussion. And if we have that discussion and I'm in the wrong, I don't want you to accept that I have a different point of view and respect that, I want you to show me that I'm wrong, so that I can be given the opportunity to be right instead. I see two different approaches to discussing any issue. The first is genuine discussion with some level of empathy and mutual understanding in the conversation. The moral foundations or value judgements can be different among people in the conversation, and the resulting conclusions can still be different, but at least there is a conversation. The second is an attempt to talk with someone with an inflexible worldview with no attempt to understand anything that might originate from a different set of values or morality. With the religious, it is openly recognized as moral judgements. With the left and the intellectual elite, they may cover it under a layer of intellectual sophistry or scientific sophistry. This group certainly won't appreciate a comparison to religious nuts, but an open discussion is as difficult among the two.
Well let's look at what you did there. You've used the word "sophistry" to describe the positions of the left, which is the use of arguments that look logical at face value but are actually invalid. This is a factual claim: you're saying that leftists use false logic, and as such, are wrong.
Now this is a very general claim, but if we specify it, it has the capacity to be true. We can have a discussion about it. But it is not very different from what you accuse "the left" (I really dislike the way Americans classify these) of doing.
|
So CBS is reporting that Trump is asking for his children to get Top Secret clearance. Oh boy. When I look at some of the things he does and says, I can only make sense of it by thinking that he has never been in a position where he is criticized for doing something that appears unethical.
|
United States15275 Posts
On November 15 2016 06:58 zlefin wrote:
it in part depends on what you mean by "intelligence" in terms of the intelligence/wisdom distinction (simply using d&d as an easy to understand example)
Even that distinction would be insufficient since we would have to go into abstract reasoning, problem solving, and so forth. The way they define it, it's higher education + conforming to pre-established beliefs + an assumption of having the necessary perception to see said truths. The last part is not restricted to the Left: it's pretty common among feminists, MRAs, and pretty much any movement that isn't accepted as a universal truth.
On November 15 2016 06:58 zlefin wrote:
while you may be right that it trends that way, and does seem somewhat so, do you have a citation for such?
I don't think at all they assume they are one and the same, that seems entirely unfounded.
A citation from whom, a sociologist?
They don't all assume it; no group is a monolithic block. But it is a frequent trend in publications and articles, not to mention a prevailing attitude among their more ardent supporters.
On November 15 2016 06:58 zlefin wrote:
ok, you are using the term correctly, but it's confusing because your claim is unfounded and not at all true in fact.
Well, all the circumstantial evidence I've seen over the last couple of years refutes that claim.
On November 15 2016 06:58 zlefin wrote:
on your 3rd point, I'm not sure why you restated that thesis when I already gave an answer to it, though you added a clause on repugnant personality which changes a lot.
Because you didn't answer my question. Would the Left/Democrats/liberals who are protesting against Donald Trump now for his incompetence do the same if he was their candidate, or would they excuse his gaffes the same way they did Hillary's? Would they be able to admit that he both advocates their worldview and is probably unfit for the presidency?
On November 15 2016 06:58 zlefin wrote:
ti's also important to note that a lack of technical qualifications in this case is alleged to be a lack of actual qualifications. i.e. it's unclear if you're using lack of technical qualifications in the sense someone might when referring to someone who say, does not have the proper certificates to demonstrate knowledge of a field or have the standard formal way of talking about it, but can in fact do quite fine in it.
I'm not sure if Trump has the "soft skills", the practical acumen or enough experience for it.
On November 15 2016 07:22 Logo wrote:
But there's a whole rash of legitimate reasons to be protesting Trump's victory besides being butthurt. It's disingenuous to assume everyone is doing it for the wrong reasons (even if some/many are), or that's only reason why they are doing it. People are butthurt every election and you don't see protests of these numbers, being a slam dunk one way or another shouldn't really change much in that respect in comparison to people seeing it as a challenge to a safe and respected existence of their peers.
That's why I used "seem". The timing of it, combined with the shock of Trump actually winning with every relevant poll and publication predicting Clinton (remember the LA Times being mocked for their unusually optimistic forecast?), gives the impression that people are doing this because they can't accept the truth. It's not true but the general impression will be that it's a display of anger and disbelief more than a principled stand. Furthermore, #notmypresident is a bad moniker if you believe that Trump is objectively bad for the office. Instead of being a protest over aspects that address the nation down to a whole, it shrinks the focus down to a partisan level...and we're so used to partisan politics that it will probably operate within an echo chamber. In that sense, I can't see it as anything more than masturbatory.
On November 15 2016 07:22 Logo wrote:
That's the other thing about this whole moral talk, some morals are going to be flexible (even hotly contested ones like say the death penalty), but there are definitely going to be a set of morals you are going to see as not negotiable and in the left's case that's going to be equality for women and minorities which Trump structured his campaign as an almost direct opposition to (whether intentional or not, and whether or not he's a liar or not).
I agree, but the type of moral self-aggrandizement characteristic of the Left these days hurts them more than it helps them. They are not content to debate the legitimacy of ideas/values and whether they take priority over other values while enacting them through legislation and social advocacy. They had to go all Leo Strauss on the issue.
|
And yet he claims them running his organization is equal to a blind trust. *groans*
|
John Bolton for SOS? Trump for restrained and wise foreign relations?
Guess we should have figured that after draining the swamp Trump would take whatever was left at the bottom.
|
|
|
I cared more about what Eichenwald had to say before he thought that he had found a secret conspiracy link between Trump and Putin and sent out 40 twits in 2 hours advertising his "bombshell" that wasn't. A failure like that really casts a black mark on my ability to take someone seriously.
|
On November 15 2016 08:47 LegalLord wrote:
I cared more about what Eichenwald had to say before he thought that he had found a secret conspiracy link between Trump and Putin and sent out 40 twits in 2 hours advertising his "bombshell" that wasn't. A failure like that really casts a black mark on my ability to take someone seriously.
i am largely in agreement on this piece. i feel like that trump-putin tweet thing was a desperate attempt to catch up to fahrenthold, or maybe he had a bit of a breakdwon.
|
On November 15 2016 08:50 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 08:47 LegalLord wrote:
I cared more about what Eichenwald had to say before he thought that he had found a secret conspiracy link between Trump and Putin and sent out 40 twits in 2 hours advertising his "bombshell" that wasn't. A failure like that really casts a black mark on my ability to take someone seriously. i am largely in agreement on this piece. i feel like that trump-putin tweet thing was a desperate attempt to catch up to fahrenthold, or maybe he had a bit of a breakdwon.
Not that this article is any better, mind you. It's just less likely to be taken seriously because less people care.
|
On November 15 2016 07:10 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 07:00 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2016 06:29 TanGeng wrote:On November 15 2016 06:23 farvacola wrote:
The self-evidence of the truth underpinning a leftist approach to civil rights is not really at issue here, though maybe I'm misunderstanding Cosmic. Instead, I think the issue comes down to using issue-based signposts as a means of ascertaining character. I think this is the morality based approach to issues. Like slavery, abortion, religion, and racism are morality issues where you can be beyond the pale for being on the wrong side of issues, we do have new morality issues by the left. But instead of being framed as morality issues, there is shift to "intelligence" "scientific" or other angles to what is at its core moral judgements. Just two pages ago we had a TL example of someone claiming "smart people have to believe this". It's hard to even have a conversation when there is very little attempt to listen or understand. Indeed. How can you even argue the moral merits if the other side asserts you're either (1) too dumb to understand you're arguing against science or (2) too clingy to your traditions to ever give fair hearing to unquestionable science? That's the kind of dismissiveness that drives people, reluctantly, into Trump's camp. At least you can start with calling ten more issues up for debate, and not get talked down to like Privilege Class is back in session. If dialogue has to go back to the ballot box for five to ten years, so be it. Whatever it takes to return the other side to the negotiating table they left when declaring a new era of enlightened social justice supported by demographic destiny. People aren't driven reluctantly into Trump's camp, that's just an excuse the more smart among them have for putting their support behind an incompetent. People choose Trump because of the things he said on the campaign trail.
Part of his message was political correctness has made politics crazy. Also, don't pretend the pussy comments, messageless blather, confused stance on trade, and the rest were all embraced ... I say reluctantly because ask any Trump voter and they'll tell you it was a hard vote to cast but they had no other choice.
|
Great article from Eichenwald that progressives swallowed that cost them the white house and the supreme court. www.newsweek.com
Some high lights include some of the opposition research on Bernie from the GOP and the fact that despite the claims from Bernie or Busters, he got far more chances to debate Clinton than any previous democratic primary canidate.
|
Eichenwald sounds like an idiot, hard to imagine him punching anyone. Someone should tell him the only reason the race wasn't over by 10PM was third parties, namely Johnson keeping Clinton competitive (he's been told this probably thousands of times by now).
The same people telling us Bernie couldn't have won are the ones that told us Trump couldn't run, get nominated, or win. They should get on a boat with Bill Krystal and the rest of the people who have been so wrong for the last couple decades.
That analysis wreaks of everything Hillary's camp still doesn't understand.
On November 15 2016 08:55 Jaaaaasper wrote:Great article from Eichenwald that progressives swallowed that cost them the white house and the supreme court. www.newsweek.comSome high lights include some of the opposition research on Bernie from the GOP and the fact that despite the claims from Bernie or Busters, he got far more chances to debate Clinton than any previous democratic primary canidate.
This repost is a great example of how Clinton's campaign worked.
Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.
That's just pathetic. The interpretation of Bernie's essay, the comparing it to Hillary's email/lies, and the idea it would have been campaign ending against Captain "grab her by the" Pu**y takes such an inordinate amount of obliviousness, I'm surprised people are still sore enough for it not to stand out as ridiculous.
That's just one paragraph.
Also, these people really don't ever want to win again do they?
Of course, there will still be those voters who snarl, “She didn’t earn my vote,” as if somehow their narcissism should override all other considerations in the election. That, however, is not what an election is about.
Yeah, voters were the narcissists, after a candidate doesn't even take the time to speak to them, Hillary felt she deserved their vote (and her supporters did too), it's that narcissism that lost her the election, not voters expecting candidates to earn their votes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
