• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 01:25
CEST 07:25
KST 14:25
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 20259Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202578RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18
Community News
[BSL 2025] H2 - Team Wars, Weeklies & SB Ladder0EWC 2025 - Replay Pack1Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced26BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0
StarCraft 2
General
#1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 EWC 2025 - Replay Pack Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 2025 I offer completely free coaching services
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $10,000 live event $25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced $5,000 WardiTV Summer Championship 2025 WardiTV Mondays
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 484 Magnetic Pull Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune
Brood War
General
Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced [BSL 2025] H2 - Team Wars, Weeklies & SB Ladder [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign Dewalt's Show Matches in China BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance
Strategy
Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? Simple Questions, Simple Answers [G] Mineral Boosting
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread UK Politics Mega-thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 572 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7849

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 7847 7848 7849 7850 7851 10093 Next
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.
Mohdoo
Profile Joined August 2007
United States15687 Posts
June 13 2017 15:47 GMT
#156961
Thought this was an interesting point: Vox shows the differences between a modern Georgia democrat and how that compares to 2014.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/13/15786220/jon-ossoff-ad?utm_campaign=vox.social&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=1497364075

Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21668 Posts
June 13 2017 15:47 GMT
#156962
On June 14 2017 00:00 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 13 2017 23:46 NewSunshine wrote:
On June 13 2017 23:40 Danglars wrote:
On June 13 2017 23:11 Nebuchad wrote:
On June 13 2017 22:17 Danglars wrote:
On June 13 2017 21:57 Nebuchad wrote:
At the risk of stating the obvious in an epic fashion, the real issue in the conversation between someone like Danglars and someone like GH is that they have a fundamental disagreement on the current state of America. Danglars thinks that it's mostly doing ok without denying some small issues, GH thinks it's doing really bad with massive systemic problems. You can have conversations on the details of this forever, but you're never going to get anywhere until you figure out which of these two underlying positions is correct, cause every disagreement that you have is based on following your premise.

To create a simplistic analogy, that's the difference between "not seeing race" in a system that works for everyone and "not seeing race" in a discriminatory system. If your system is doing mostly fine, it's great that you don't see race, it means that you aren't biased: it's a good thing. If you are in a system where some races are systematically put at a disadvantage and you don't see race, you won't be able to see the systemic racism that is happening: it's a bad thing.

If you start from the premise that the system is fine, you can't argue that not seeing race is a bad thing. If you start from the premise that the system is terrible, you can't argue that not seeing race is a good thing.

So just figure out which system you really have, otherwise you won't get anywhere.

Basically correct. Why can you see this but think xDaunt is some kind of justifying apologist for Trump instead of another conflict in the fundamental way we view and identify the problems in the world? It's a lazy argument and I'm torn if it comes from how Trump has changed your side or forum-based mob mentality.


Don't really get the link that you're making here (genuinely). I think it's pretty clear that a lot of non-politician support for Republicans in general comes from sticking it to the liberals (that's how I view xDaunt, not as an apologist but as a hater), I don't think you reach some of the standard positions that republicans hold without that (climate change, guns and taxes jump to my mind).

I also don't think you should just identify that there's this fundamental difference and stop there, I think you should figure out who has it right, cause that's kind of an important issue. From where I sit it seems pretty obvious that it's not you, but it doesn't matter what I think.

Deep admission, thank you for being honest. I never really made the connection in your thinking.

It's becoming glaringly obvious to me that you much prefer to win arguments by attempting to undermine the person you are arguing with, and not what that person is saying. I'm glad I found out.

I also use the thread to find out what liberals actually believe and why. I had no idea until just now that Nebuchad considered those three policy positions as stemming from "sticking it to the liberals" and not sincerely held. I literally agree with the broad thought in his second paragraph.

+ Show Spoiler [context] +

On June 03 2017 03:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 03 2017 03:28 xDaunt wrote:
On June 03 2017 03:27 Artisreal wrote:
On June 03 2017 02:07 xDaunt wrote:
On June 03 2017 01:56 LegalLord wrote:
The way I see it, the most important link in the Paris Accords and why I put so much stock into it is not as much the US as it is China. Sure, first worlders will get greedy and attempt to skirt the regulations to the extent that it is possible. But China is notorious for dragging their feet something fierce, almost unwilling to even acknowledge that climate change is a problem worth addressing. Yet China finally started to "get it" and have made efforts to (albeit slowly) reduce their carbon footprint.

The US will, as it always has, move slowly. The writing on the wall suggests that it's not economically feasible to skimp on climate forever. It still looks stupid though.

Please. The Paris Accords were a boon to China. Built-in comparative advantages and subsidies afforded to the Chinese with no enforcement mechanism to ensure that the Chinese meet their own obligations? Yeah, that's a tough one for the Chinese to accept....

The US's unfair andvantage is that the fuck over the rest of the world but have the military and economic power to not give a fuck.

Red, white, and blue baby! Why shouldn't the US unapologetically pursue its national interest? We don't exist to be a charitable organization.


Don't you have some Heritage Foundation numbers on the cost of openly fucking over the rest of the world for a family of four by 2035?

On June 03 2017 03:24 Nebuchad wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 03 2017 03:23 xDaunt wrote:
On June 03 2017 03:20 KwarK wrote:
On June 03 2017 03:17 NewSunshine wrote:
On June 03 2017 03:13 KwarK wrote:
On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:
What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that.

When you say Americans paying thousands of dollars it's implied that they're each paying thousands of dollars. The only alternative way that could be read would be Americans collectively paying thousands of dollars between them which wouldn't make sense because that'd be $0.00001 each.

Fortunately there can actually be no confusion here because that confusion was cleared up when I asked the specific question and he gave me a very clear answer.
On June 02 2017 09:22 xDaunt wrote:
On June 02 2017 09:04 KwarK wrote:
Thousands of dollars of costs per American per year? Really? Because those are the numbers you've been saying over and over.

Yep, that's what the Heritage Foundation computed it at. These measures aren't free.


I gave him too much credit then.

These alt-righters literally cannot manage the words "I misspoke, my bad". When they're corrected on the facts they just pretend it never happened and when they can't pretend any longer they deny. It's comical.

No, it looks like I just misread your post when responding to it. The only time "per American" got injected into the conversation is when you put it in there. I very clearly have been citing the Heritage Foundation numbers all along. Their numbers are what they are.


Second and third stage in the same post.

Kind of meta, I like it.


These raised a question in my mind. Why go from troll-y accusations of bad faith to spot-on identifications of irreconcilable worldviews (aka one must be wrong)? He answered it and I'm happy. It's amazing what we can learn about each other sometimes, NewSunshine.

If its not 'sticking it to the liberals' then you (or Republicans in general) genuinely believe in trickle down economics and that climate change is not a problem. (I'll ignore guns for now since imo that is a different matter)

Its hard to accept that a significant portion of the country does not believe in facts, science or reality and much easier to believe they hold these idea's out of spite.
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21668 Posts
June 13 2017 15:49 GMT
#156963
On June 14 2017 00:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:

What? You have to go through a committee to interview a representative of the people? (the person being interviewed having to consent is imo normal).
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
Haemonculus
Profile Blog Joined November 2004
United States6980 Posts
June 13 2017 16:11 GMT
#156964
On June 13 2017 22:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 13 2017 21:57 Nebuchad wrote:
At the risk of stating the obvious in an epic fashion, the real issue in the conversation between someone like Danglars and someone like GH is that they have a fundamental disagreement on the current state of America. Danglars thinks that it's mostly doing ok without denying some small issues, GH thinks it's doing really bad with massive systemic problems. You can have conversations on the details of this forever, but you're never going to get anywhere until you figure out which of these two underlying positions is correct, cause every disagreement that you have is based on following your premise.

To create a simplistic analogy, that's the difference between "not seeing race" in a system that works for everyone and "not seeing race" in a discriminatory system. If your system is doing mostly fine, it's great that you don't see race, it means that you aren't biased: it's a good thing. If you are in a system where some races are systematically put at a disadvantage and you don't see race, you won't be able to see the systemic racism that is happening: it's a bad thing.

If you start from the premise that the system is fine, you can't argue that not seeing race is a bad thing. If you start from the premise that the system is terrible, you can't argue that not seeing race is a good thing.

So just figure out which system you really have, otherwise you won't get anywhere.


That's just it, we know which one we have. It has to be the one with a system that's terrible otherwise folks like Danglars wouldn't bother complaining about the problems of rich, powerful, white, men.

If rich, powerful, white, men, have any personal complaints (especially around unfair treatment) that should be taken seriously by anyone other than the people they pay to worry about that stuff, then obviously millions of people having their constitutional rights violated on a habitual level must be a 5 alarm fire.

That the "unfairness" toward someone like Trump riles up folks like Danglars in ways that the suffering of oppressed people never has and may never will, says more than I could with a thousand words.



Damn. Very well said.


It's clear Danglars knows it's a disaster, he just also knows (or at least believes) that he doesn't have to worry about their suffering because it's not his (or someone like him) problem and as such isn't significant.

I think he even knows that's what he's doing, he just isn't at the point where he can accept it and own it.


This might be a simplistic explanation though. Now I haven't followed this thread closely in many years so I don't know who most of the new regulars are, but without knowing Danglars I feel like you are being a bit unfair.

People naturally see the world from their own perspective and struggle to understand things that don't affect them personally. I think this is half of the key of understanding the frustration of a lot of young white men and/or republicans. The other half is the indirect blame they receive for a lot of issues they aren't even aware of in the first place. They see themselves painted as the bad guy in a conflict they aren't fully aware of.

My work means I spend a ton of time with primarily young 20/30s men, almost entirely white but not exclusively. I've spent a lot of time talking with them, and I've seen a lot of this behavior out of good-natured people who if anything suffer solely from ignorance and a bit of a victim complex. They don't understand the systemic issues in our country that do not affect them, and they feel attacked for being part of the group traditionally blamed for those issues. It's frustrating to watch them rationalize their worldviews like this, but honestly it's hard to blame them for what is likely just human nature.

If they never experience sexual harassment firsthand, and they also do not *personally* sexually harass women, then in their mind sexual harassment doesn't really exist. Or at least, not to the extent that some women claim it does. Then, when "men" are held in distrust for the harassment that women experience, these young men feel unfairly blamed for a problem that in their mind isn't real.

If they never experience undue harassment and stop-and-frisk type behavior from police, and they've also never *personally* harassed a young black kid, then that police brutality doesn't really exist. They don't ever see it in their day to day lives. And then movements like BLM point the finger at white men and the power establishment, again they feel unfairly blamed for a problem that in their mind isn't real.

If they've never been discriminated against in housing, jobs, public, and they've also never *personally* denied a gay person an apartment or called someone a faggot in public, etc etc.

They start to feel like the victims of an imagined blame game. They, the "evil white men" as they start to identify as, are being unfairly accused of a whole host of phantom menaces. The folks blaming them, "liberals, minorities, feminists" etc, are seen as crazy, unreasonable, race-baiting loons. It becomes very easy to cling to that mentality and look for anything that reinforces the idea that your enemies are crazy special snowflake loons, like Danglar's linked article about a crazy person unhappy with a particular bathroom. They see their somewhat loose identity attacked. "White" and "Male" held up as the enemy of these crusades, and so they cling all the tighter to those labels.

And young liberals suffer the same lack of extrospection. It's just as naive to write off these inexperienced young men as malicious in their intent. Again having spent a lot of time with mostly privileged young white men, the biggest thing I can hold against them is a lack of exposure to the world at large. A lot of them mean well but simply can't see the world from any perspective other than their own. Now that said, whether or not it's excusable once those same men start voting for candidates that seek to repeal protections for minorities is a different debate.

Anyway, focus on communication. Human nature doesn't drastically change from person to person. Chances are if either of you had been raised in the other's shoes, you'd hold values similar to their own.
I admire your commitment to being *very* oily
Buckyman
Profile Joined May 2014
1364 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-06-13 16:28:04
June 13 2017 16:19 GMT
#156965
On June 14 2017 00:47 Gorsameth wrote:
If its not 'sticking it to the liberals' then you (or Republicans in general) genuinely believe in trickle down economics and that climate change is not a problem. (I'll ignore guns for now since imo that is a different matter)

Its hard to accept that a significant portion of the country does not believe in facts, science or reality and much easier to believe they hold these idea's out of spite.


I'm going to step in here as the resident non-binary speaker. You're building a false dichotomy.

Consider three hypotheses:
1) Roughly a third of the country chooses what they believe based on the opposite of what you believe.
2) Roughly a third of the country is literally insane
3) Roughly a third of the country has, through rational thought processes, arrived at a belief that is both substantiated and different from what you believe.

I would argue that we should eliminate 2 out of hand; insanity has more effects than "odd" beliefs, which we would have observed as a social collapse if they were widespread. Unless you define "insane" as "believes stuff I think is false" in which case it ceases to be a useful category because people can come to different beliefs based on the same process by virtue of looking at slightly different data.

How can you tell the difference between 1 and 3? A good way is to ask them why they believe what they believe, and apply Miller's Law. We did that with climate change upthread. I think I know where the difference is now; I'll post it later today because I don't want to derail this meta-discussion.

A better way, though, is to ask them what they think about a policy in between their position and your own. Comparing reasons for disagreeing with that policy gives a better sense of where their different beliefs come from than simply asking them to recite some memorized justifications. I've been using this strategy upthread; I don't necessarily agree with all the policies I've asked y'all to weigh in on, though I can debate in favor if necessary, but your answers tend to have concise versions of your dominant values on the topic.

Finally, once you've identified a values difference, you need to continue the discussion taking their values into account. Because the values are rarely diametrically opposed, there's some chance of finding a suggestion that's better at satisfying everyone's values than the status quo.

(Note: this advice goes for BOTH factions)
Nebuchad
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
Switzerland12172 Posts
June 13 2017 16:31 GMT
#156966
On June 14 2017 01:11 Haemonculus wrote:
Again having spent a lot of time with mostly privileged young white men, the biggest thing I can hold against them is a lack of exposure to the world at large. A lot of them mean well but simply can't see the world from any perspective other than their own. Now that said, whether or not it's excusable once those same men start voting for candidates that seek to repeal protections for minorities is a different debate.


I don't think it's a different debate, I think it's a crucial part of this very debate. At some point we have to balance the amount of understanding that we have for the people who lack empathy and the amount of understanding that we have for the people who have actual problems in their lives that could use some solving and don't get to be solved because the first people, who firmly believe they aren't part of a problem, keep voting for politicians who at best won't solve the problem and at worst will reinforce it.
No will to live, no wish to die
Dangermousecatdog
Profile Joined December 2010
United Kingdom7084 Posts
June 13 2017 16:50 GMT
#156967
At some point you must understand that the person in question voted for Donald Trump, because he supports the building of a wall across the border of Mexico. Now...apply Miller's Law. What does this tell you?

______

On June 14 2017 01:11 Haemonculus wrote:
My work means I spend a ton of time with primarily young 20/30s men, almost entirely white but not exclusively. I've spent a lot of time talking with them, and I've seen a lot of this behavior out of good-natured people who if anything suffer solely from ignorance and a bit of a victim complex. They don't understand the systemic issues in our country that do not affect them, and they feel attacked for being part of the group traditionally blamed for those issues. It's frustrating to watch them rationalize their worldviews like this, but honestly it's hard to blame them for what is likely just human nature.

If they never experience sexual harassment firsthand, and they also do not *personally* sexually harass women, then in their mind sexual harassment doesn't really exist. Or at least, not to the extent that some women claim it does. Then, when "men" are held in distrust for the harassment that women experience, these young men feel unfairly blamed for a problem that in their mind isn't real.
That kind of worldview is hard to reconcile with the rest of the western world. Even in macho Spain and Italy, where sexual harrassment is commonplace, there is recognition that sexual harrassment occurs, but men do not feel a sense of victimhood. The difference is probably that in USA, men are held more accountable or that there is a different macho culture.
Haemonculus
Profile Blog Joined November 2004
United States6980 Posts
June 13 2017 16:50 GMT
#156968
On June 14 2017 01:31 Nebuchad wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 14 2017 01:11 Haemonculus wrote:
Again having spent a lot of time with mostly privileged young white men, the biggest thing I can hold against them is a lack of exposure to the world at large. A lot of them mean well but simply can't see the world from any perspective other than their own. Now that said, whether or not it's excusable once those same men start voting for candidates that seek to repeal protections for minorities is a different debate.


I don't think it's a different debate, I think it's a crucial part of this very debate. At some point we have to balance the amount of understanding that we have for the people who lack empathy and the amount of understanding that we have for the people who have actual problems in their lives that could use some solving and don't get to be solved because the first people, who firmly believe they aren't part of a problem, keep voting for politicians who at best won't solve the problem and at worst will reinforce it.


Alright, fair. Definitely part of the same debate.

But how to convey that to those people is the hard part. Again I think it's less that they lack empathy and more that they lack exposure. Or if anything they lack the *opportunity* for empathy.

Watch SNL, Colbert, Bill Maher, or any other Rich Coast Liberal television show and put yourself in the shoes of a conservative voter in the Midwest/South. It's no wonder they dislike us. If we're going to change any minds, we have to actually engage with them. Not talk down to them.
I admire your commitment to being *very* oily
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
June 13 2017 16:55 GMT
#156969
On June 14 2017 01:50 Haemonculus wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 14 2017 01:31 Nebuchad wrote:
On June 14 2017 01:11 Haemonculus wrote:
Again having spent a lot of time with mostly privileged young white men, the biggest thing I can hold against them is a lack of exposure to the world at large. A lot of them mean well but simply can't see the world from any perspective other than their own. Now that said, whether or not it's excusable once those same men start voting for candidates that seek to repeal protections for minorities is a different debate.


I don't think it's a different debate, I think it's a crucial part of this very debate. At some point we have to balance the amount of understanding that we have for the people who lack empathy and the amount of understanding that we have for the people who have actual problems in their lives that could use some solving and don't get to be solved because the first people, who firmly believe they aren't part of a problem, keep voting for politicians who at best won't solve the problem and at worst will reinforce it.


Alright, fair. Definitely part of the same debate.

But how to convey that to those people is the hard part. Again I think it's less that they lack empathy and more that they lack exposure. Or if anything they lack the *opportunity* for empathy.

Watch SNL, Colbert, Bill Maher, or any other Rich Coast Liberal television show and put yourself in the shoes of a conservative voter in the Midwest/South. It's no wonder they dislike us. If we're going to change any minds, we have to actually engage with them. Not talk down to them.

There is no shortage of right wing comedians and music stars making fun of the out of touch liberals. They are just not on the same networks. They like entertainment that mocks liberals just as much as we like the Daily show.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
June 13 2017 16:56 GMT
#156970
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
Buckyman
Profile Joined May 2014
1364 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-06-13 17:07:17
June 13 2017 17:04 GMT
#156971
On June 14 2017 01:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
At some point you must understand that the person in question voted for Donald Trump, because he supports the building of a wall across the border of Mexico. Now...apply Miller's Law. What does this tell you?


Possible explanations, in no particular order:
1) They believed illegal immigration or drug-smuggling is a problem and that a wall is an effective partial-solution.
2) They thought Mexico would pay for the wall and wanted "free" stuff.
3) They subscribe to the 'hole filling' economic principle; they believe building the wall will stimulate the economy.
4) They aren't in favor of the wall per se, but viewed it as an improvement over the alternative (Clinton's) immigration proposals.
5) They don't think the wall will actually be built but view the threat of building it as an effective immigration policy tool. (Game Theory explanation)
6) They don't care about the wall itself, just the solar panels installed on it. <- not actually proposed until after the election
6) They see the wall as a symbolic indicator of a willingness to tackle immigration issues that have gone unaddressed.
ZerOCoolSC2
Profile Blog Joined February 2015
8983 Posts
June 13 2017 17:06 GMT
#156972
On June 14 2017 01:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
https://twitter.com/kasie/status/874671733432877056

This reads weird. I understand what is says, but it's still scratching at my brain.
ZerOCoolSC2
Profile Blog Joined February 2015
8983 Posts
June 13 2017 17:09 GMT
#156973
On June 14 2017 02:04 Buckyman wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 14 2017 01:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
At some point you must understand that the person in question voted for Donald Trump, because he supports the building of a wall across the border of Mexico. Now...apply Miller's Law. What does this tell you?


Possible explanations, in no particular order:
1) They believed illegal immigration or drug-smuggling is a problem and that a wall is an effective partial-solution.
2) They thought Mexico would pay for the wall and wanted "free" stuff.
3) They subscribe to the 'hole filling' economic principle; they believe building the wall will stimulate the economy.
4) They aren't in favor of the wall per se, but viewed it as an improvement over the alternative (Clinton's) immigration proposals.
5) They don't think the wall will actually be built but view the threat of building it as an effective immigration policy tool.
6) They don't care about the wall itself, just the solar panels installed on it. <- not actually proposed until after the election
6) They see the wall as a symbolic indicator of a willingness to tackle immigration issues that have gone unaddressed.

I'd add another that states: A metaphorical, if not physical, implication that America is "their" nation and that no one is welcome unless vetted. Legally or illegally.
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
June 13 2017 17:13 GMT
#156974
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
Nebuchad
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
Switzerland12172 Posts
June 13 2017 17:20 GMT
#156975
On June 14 2017 01:50 Haemonculus wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 14 2017 01:31 Nebuchad wrote:
On June 14 2017 01:11 Haemonculus wrote:
Again having spent a lot of time with mostly privileged young white men, the biggest thing I can hold against them is a lack of exposure to the world at large. A lot of them mean well but simply can't see the world from any perspective other than their own. Now that said, whether or not it's excusable once those same men start voting for candidates that seek to repeal protections for minorities is a different debate.


I don't think it's a different debate, I think it's a crucial part of this very debate. At some point we have to balance the amount of understanding that we have for the people who lack empathy and the amount of understanding that we have for the people who have actual problems in their lives that could use some solving and don't get to be solved because the first people, who firmly believe they aren't part of a problem, keep voting for politicians who at best won't solve the problem and at worst will reinforce it.


Alright, fair. Definitely part of the same debate.

But how to convey that to those people is the hard part. Again I think it's less that they lack empathy and more that they lack exposure. Or if anything they lack the *opportunity* for empathy.

Watch SNL, Colbert, Bill Maher, or any other Rich Coast Liberal television show and put yourself in the shoes of a conservative voter in the Midwest/South. It's no wonder they dislike us. If we're going to change any minds, we have to actually engage with them. Not talk down to them.


My attempt would be to give a focus to the debate. The initial premise on whether the US is mostly doing fine or not is where it's at; if you don't have that backbone that the US are doing mostly fine, I don't see how you can have a honest worldview where the other groups are just a bunch of whiners that want to play the victim. So I'd challenge that initial premise and see whether and how well they are willing to defend it.
No will to live, no wish to die
Haemonculus
Profile Blog Joined November 2004
United States6980 Posts
June 13 2017 17:23 GMT
#156976
On June 14 2017 01:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 14 2017 01:11 Haemonculus wrote:
My work means I spend a ton of time with primarily young 20/30s men, almost entirely white but not exclusively. I've spent a lot of time talking with them, and I've seen a lot of this behavior out of good-natured people who if anything suffer solely from ignorance and a bit of a victim complex. They don't understand the systemic issues in our country that do not affect them, and they feel attacked for being part of the group traditionally blamed for those issues. It's frustrating to watch them rationalize their worldviews like this, but honestly it's hard to blame them for what is likely just human nature.

If they never experience sexual harassment firsthand, and they also do not *personally* sexually harass women, then in their mind sexual harassment doesn't really exist. Or at least, not to the extent that some women claim it does. Then, when "men" are held in distrust for the harassment that women experience, these young men feel unfairly blamed for a problem that in their mind isn't real.
That kind of worldview is hard to reconcile with the rest of the western world. Even in macho Spain and Italy, where sexual harrassment is commonplace, there is recognition that sexual harrassment occurs, but men do not feel a sense of victimhood. The difference is probably that in USA, men are held more accountable or that there is a different macho culture.

That's actually really interesting. I'd be curious as to what causes those differences.
I admire your commitment to being *very* oily
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
June 13 2017 17:40 GMT
#156977
On June 14 2017 02:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 14 2017 01:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
https://twitter.com/kasie/status/874671733432877056

This reads weird. I understand what is says, but it's still scratching at my brain.

From what I am reading from congressional reporters is that some congressional staff told them they were not allowed to conduct interviews in the hallways. They claimed there were new rules in place. Once that started to be reported by the press, someone in congress walked it back and said there were no new rules. It sounds like tensions in capitol hill are pretty high due to the mythical healthcare bill no one gets to read.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-06-13 17:55:38
June 13 2017 17:52 GMT
#156978
On June 14 2017 00:47 Gorsameth wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 14 2017 00:00 Danglars wrote:
On June 13 2017 23:46 NewSunshine wrote:
On June 13 2017 23:40 Danglars wrote:
On June 13 2017 23:11 Nebuchad wrote:
On June 13 2017 22:17 Danglars wrote:
On June 13 2017 21:57 Nebuchad wrote:
At the risk of stating the obvious in an epic fashion, the real issue in the conversation between someone like Danglars and someone like GH is that they have a fundamental disagreement on the current state of America. Danglars thinks that it's mostly doing ok without denying some small issues, GH thinks it's doing really bad with massive systemic problems. You can have conversations on the details of this forever, but you're never going to get anywhere until you figure out which of these two underlying positions is correct, cause every disagreement that you have is based on following your premise.

To create a simplistic analogy, that's the difference between "not seeing race" in a system that works for everyone and "not seeing race" in a discriminatory system. If your system is doing mostly fine, it's great that you don't see race, it means that you aren't biased: it's a good thing. If you are in a system where some races are systematically put at a disadvantage and you don't see race, you won't be able to see the systemic racism that is happening: it's a bad thing.

If you start from the premise that the system is fine, you can't argue that not seeing race is a bad thing. If you start from the premise that the system is terrible, you can't argue that not seeing race is a good thing.

So just figure out which system you really have, otherwise you won't get anywhere.

Basically correct. Why can you see this but think xDaunt is some kind of justifying apologist for Trump instead of another conflict in the fundamental way we view and identify the problems in the world? It's a lazy argument and I'm torn if it comes from how Trump has changed your side or forum-based mob mentality.


Don't really get the link that you're making here (genuinely). I think it's pretty clear that a lot of non-politician support for Republicans in general comes from sticking it to the liberals (that's how I view xDaunt, not as an apologist but as a hater), I don't think you reach some of the standard positions that republicans hold without that (climate change, guns and taxes jump to my mind).

I also don't think you should just identify that there's this fundamental difference and stop there, I think you should figure out who has it right, cause that's kind of an important issue. From where I sit it seems pretty obvious that it's not you, but it doesn't matter what I think.

Deep admission, thank you for being honest. I never really made the connection in your thinking.

It's becoming glaringly obvious to me that you much prefer to win arguments by attempting to undermine the person you are arguing with, and not what that person is saying. I'm glad I found out.

I also use the thread to find out what liberals actually believe and why. I had no idea until just now that Nebuchad considered those three policy positions as stemming from "sticking it to the liberals" and not sincerely held. I literally agree with the broad thought in his second paragraph.

+ Show Spoiler [context] +

On June 03 2017 03:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 03 2017 03:28 xDaunt wrote:
On June 03 2017 03:27 Artisreal wrote:
On June 03 2017 02:07 xDaunt wrote:
On June 03 2017 01:56 LegalLord wrote:
The way I see it, the most important link in the Paris Accords and why I put so much stock into it is not as much the US as it is China. Sure, first worlders will get greedy and attempt to skirt the regulations to the extent that it is possible. But China is notorious for dragging their feet something fierce, almost unwilling to even acknowledge that climate change is a problem worth addressing. Yet China finally started to "get it" and have made efforts to (albeit slowly) reduce their carbon footprint.

The US will, as it always has, move slowly. The writing on the wall suggests that it's not economically feasible to skimp on climate forever. It still looks stupid though.

Please. The Paris Accords were a boon to China. Built-in comparative advantages and subsidies afforded to the Chinese with no enforcement mechanism to ensure that the Chinese meet their own obligations? Yeah, that's a tough one for the Chinese to accept....

The US's unfair andvantage is that the fuck over the rest of the world but have the military and economic power to not give a fuck.

Red, white, and blue baby! Why shouldn't the US unapologetically pursue its national interest? We don't exist to be a charitable organization.


Don't you have some Heritage Foundation numbers on the cost of openly fucking over the rest of the world for a family of four by 2035?

On June 03 2017 03:24 Nebuchad wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 03 2017 03:23 xDaunt wrote:
On June 03 2017 03:20 KwarK wrote:
On June 03 2017 03:17 NewSunshine wrote:
On June 03 2017 03:13 KwarK wrote:
On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:
What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that.

When you say Americans paying thousands of dollars it's implied that they're each paying thousands of dollars. The only alternative way that could be read would be Americans collectively paying thousands of dollars between them which wouldn't make sense because that'd be $0.00001 each.

Fortunately there can actually be no confusion here because that confusion was cleared up when I asked the specific question and he gave me a very clear answer.
On June 02 2017 09:22 xDaunt wrote:
On June 02 2017 09:04 KwarK wrote:
Thousands of dollars of costs per American per year? Really? Because those are the numbers you've been saying over and over.

Yep, that's what the Heritage Foundation computed it at. These measures aren't free.


I gave him too much credit then.

These alt-righters literally cannot manage the words "I misspoke, my bad". When they're corrected on the facts they just pretend it never happened and when they can't pretend any longer they deny. It's comical.

No, it looks like I just misread your post when responding to it. The only time "per American" got injected into the conversation is when you put it in there. I very clearly have been citing the Heritage Foundation numbers all along. Their numbers are what they are.


Second and third stage in the same post.

Kind of meta, I like it.


These raised a question in my mind. Why go from troll-y accusations of bad faith to spot-on identifications of irreconcilable worldviews (aka one must be wrong)? He answered it and I'm happy. It's amazing what we can learn about each other sometimes, NewSunshine.

If its not 'sticking it to the liberals' then you (or Republicans in general) genuinely believe in trickle down economics and that climate change is not a problem. (I'll ignore guns for now since imo that is a different matter)

Its hard to accept that a significant portion of the country does not believe in facts, science or reality and much easier to believe they hold these idea's out of spite.

most people claim to believe in facts; they're just not capable enough to accurately discern what ARE facts and what aren't (and they aren't able to tell that they aren't able to discern facts well). learning to actually discern facts rigorously takes a lot of training and willingness; and many people simply don't have the training, some also don't have the willingness/mindset. they rely on heuristics which have exploitable failure points, which politicians through the ages have exploited. also add in some sociological processes adn that largely accounts for it.
if you need more detail it can be provided.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
June 13 2017 17:52 GMT
#156979
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
June 13 2017 17:54 GMT
#156980
On June 14 2017 02:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/874684941682036739

So... we can say Trump is on par with Clinton?

If Billy was that unpopular five months in, Hillary would probably be worse than Trump. Lol.

(To be fair the entire reason for Trump low popularity is that he invents his own crises.)
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Prev 1 7847 7848 7849 7850 7851 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 5h 35m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 248
ProTech71
StarCraft: Brood War
Sea 4064
Zeus 1010
Leta 781
zelot 104
Sacsri 84
Noble 18
HiyA 17
Bale 15
Icarus 12
NotJumperer 11
[ Show more ]
soO 0
League of Legends
JimRising 831
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K604
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox2666
Other Games
summit1g14014
ROOTCatZ116
RuFF_SC2100
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1577
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 18 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• davetesta74
• practicex 61
• Kozan
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Migwel
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• iopq 2
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
League of Legends
• Doublelift6225
• Rush1722
• Lourlo1062
• HappyZerGling103
Other Games
• Scarra2487
Upcoming Events
Wardi Open
5h 35m
Sparkling Tuna Cup
1d 4h
WardiTV European League
1d 10h
Online Event
1d 12h
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
2 days
The PondCast
3 days
Replay Cast
3 days
Korean StarCraft League
4 days
CranKy Ducklings
5 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

BSL 20 Non-Korean Championship
FEL Cracow 2025
Underdog Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL 20 Team Wars
CC Div. A S7
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

BSL 21 Qualifiers
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
WardiTV Summer 2025
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.