Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Apprentice: Presidential Producer-This argument is stupid-Your FACE is stupid!!

The Apprentice: Presidential Producer-This argument is stupid-Your FACE is stupid!! (Page 3)
Thread Tools
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2016, 02:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
I guess empathy is the next big thing. The race card is now out of fashion. Now days we basically know there is no real measurable oppression left in this country (a card EVERYBODY tried to form some kinda "group" to get in on), so the next big thing is empathy (what do you call it when a song everybody use to like is now hated because it was overplayed played on the radio?).
Now it's, "everyone must feel sorry for everyone who wants to be felt sorry for". Nothing is anyone's fault unless you're "privileged" (and we all know what that means). If you commit a crime, it's not your fault, you are a unique individual who just had it rough. You were set up, there were just too many things to make you angry in life.

Thats what we indoctrinate into people. I recommend ya'll read the Narcissism Epidemic Living in the Age of Entitlement . This is whats really happening to our society. Of course I dont want to give the impression I needed to read a book to know this. I am the all-knowing el chupacabra, enlightened source of sources, I do not need books. But this stuff reaffirms everything I already understand. People wouldn't be offended & crying all the time if they didn't already over value themselves.

A few more links:
Me Me Me Me Me
"‘The best-case scenario is disillusionment’
Most of the traits have at their core the belief that one is extraordinary. The problem is obvious immediately: most people are not extraordinary.
The problem with narcissistic traits is that they’re unrealistic; the belief in one’s own extraordinariness will sooner or later abut the world, and the result will be disillusionment in the best-case scenario or ever-greater fake grandeur in the worst. “Especially when you’re talking about traits and not the disorder, it’s correlated in youth with less depression, less anxiety,” says Twenge. “It wasn’t until middle age that narcissists became depressed, because of their failed relationships.”

The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement - Book

"We know that narcissism has increased over time among individuals based on several datasets. College students now endorse more narcissistic traits than college students did in the 1980s and 1990s; in one large sample the change seemed to be accelerating after 2002. An Internet sample of the general population also showed higher narcissism scores among younger people than older people."


Why does this have to be some sort of demand, power play, or wedge issue, and not just something that people voluntarily do because they are decent human beings?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2016, 07:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This implies Trump's use of "wrong" actually convinced people of something.

No one heard "wrong" and went "oh... I am now compelled to rethink my position".

People who were already convinced were buoyed by the comment, those who were unconvinced remained so.
Thats how I feel about it too. I'm just saying there are a bunch of pretty smart people who seem to think differently.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2016, 07:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
I guess empathy is the next big thing. The race card is now out of fashion. Now days we basically know there is no real measurable oppression left in this country (a card EVERYBODY tried to form some kinda "group" to get in on), so the next big thing is empathy (what do you call it when a song everybody use to like is now hated because it was overplayed played on the radio?).
I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people who would disagree with you on the non-existence of oppression. Me included. Certain states continue to pass laws making it more difficult for women to get abortions they have a right to. I call that oppression for a start.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Now it's, "everyone must feel sorry for everyone who wants to be felt sorry for". Nothing is anyone's fault unless you're "privileged" (and we all know what that means). If you commit a crime, it's not your fault, you are a unique individual who just had it rough. You were set up, there were just too many things to make you angry in life.
Everything is so black and white with conservatives isn't it? Just because you understand why someone is the way they are, doesn't mean you have to forgive them and let them get away with whatever they want. I can probably go a long way towards explaining your stance on a great many things using only good old Catholic guilt but it doesn't mean I can't disagree with you even if I'm right.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Thats what we indoctrinate into people.
Thats what the right indoctrinates people to believe the left indoctrinates people into. :/


Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
People wouldn't be offended & crying all the time if they didn't already over value themselves.
Nor would they overvalue themselves if they were allowed to be exposed to failure and disappointment more when they were growing up. Its a very simple disconnect which is very easily understood but it gets glossed over and ignored all the time by conservative and liberal alike.

I recall as a teenager working in a cinema, there was a middle aged woman working there as a second job just to buy her ungrateful kids designer crap they demanded but didn't appreciate. I asked her about it and she said she just wanted them to have the things and advantages that she never had. Thats a really nice thing to want for your kids, and it actually makes you a good parent because you care, but these parents don't realise that they turned out as good as they did because of some of the hardships they endured, not despite them.

Parents really need to be taught the value of failure and disappointment. Its much easier when you learn to deal with it earlier in life than later on. Same goes for telling kids no. Parents seem to find it harder than ever to do nowadays because kids are so annoying when they want something and it makes a parent feel fulfilled when they see how happy the kid is to get something they want. Teach a kid to accept "no" at the age of two or three, they'll be so much better behaved for the rest of their lives.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2017, 07:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'm just saying there are a bunch of pretty smart people who seem to think differently.
Not sure if gag.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2017, 07:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
My statement about empathy was very general and non-specific, you seem to be taking it to extremes looking at cases of murder and such. Of course it is human to have a hard time with empathy towards somebody who has committed these sorts of crimes, but we don't need to start with such extreme cases.

Humans are humans, I'm not trying to suggest that Americans are some rare breed of human, but the culture in the country feels very dog eat dog right now. People feel threatened, scared, and fiercely protective of their self-interests (that others often are perceived to threaten). People have to fight tooth and nail for "equality" in various permutations, it is often not always the obvious choice.

We all know somebody that has a learning disability, who is a woman trying to compete in male-dominated areas, a black person, somebody with something worthy of a little "put yourself in their shoes" sort of treatment. All I'm saying is that on the whole, we are generally poor at doing this. We don't need to look beyond Trump and his followers to see this part of our culture reflected back at us, it has existed before him, and will continue to exist if he were to disappear tomorrow - it's much bigger than him.
If I have empathy for the gangbanger, I'm going to have empathy for all those other individuals as well.

Included in that group would be a poor, unemployed white guy living in a trailer park where everyone is strung out on meth.

Most Democrats would tell this person they are a lower priority than the urban poor, and it's a bad idea to artificially prop-up the type of jobs normally available to him. Unfortunately for this person, I'm inclined to agree, therefore I am to be held accountable for handing this guy a shit sandwich.

Here are some ways Democrats account for themselves.

"Don't you realize eating the sandwich is in your best interest?"

"If you were educated, you'd realize how tasty the sandwich is."

"Only racists don't eat the sandwich."

...

"Do you even know how to empathy?"
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2017, 04:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If I have empathy for the gangbanger, I'm going to have empathy for all those other individuals as well.

Included in that group would be a poor, unemployed white guy living in a trailer park where everyone is strung out on meth.

Most Democrats would tell this person they are a lower priority than the urban poor, and it's a bad idea to artificially prop-up the type of jobs normally available to him. Unfortunately for this person, I'm inclined to agree, therefore I am to be held accountable for handing this guy a shit sandwich.

Here are some ways Democrats account for themselves.

"Don't you realize eating the sandwich is in your best interest?"

"If you were educated, you'd realize how tasty the sandwich is."

"Only racists don't eat the sandwich."

...

"Do you even know how to empathy?"
You genuinely seem to have tacked hard to the right since the election- or at least have become much more hostile to progressives, regressives, democrats, or what ever you want to call us/them.

We are not all in lock-step agreement any more than all Republicans or Libertarians are. I think most good hearted people of all political persuasions genuinely want the best for the greatest number of people. Those of us on the left just happen to think that while both have some pretty fundamental flaws, Government is a better way to solve the big problems than the free market.

By and large, we are not bad people who hate poor white people and think all Christians are terrible and love terrorists and hate freedom. Regardless of the opinions you seem to have formed, we are a fairly nuanced bunch.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2017, 06:37 AM
 
Was it unfair of me to lay those arguments at the feet of the Democrats? In my experience they're quite common. The first (poor Republicans vote against their self-interest) is as old as the hills.

I personally find those types of arguments cringeworthy. Is this a zero-sum game? The unavoidable result of holding Democrats accountable for those arguments is a tack to the right?

That would be ironic because my goal is to stop the Democrats from losing to an utter moron... again.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2017, 11:28 AM
 
I don't see democrats discriminating on where they put their empathy, urban or rural wise. Democrats were outraged when republican Gov LePage shut down meth treatment programs in Maine. Who cares for the rural poor white folk on meth?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2017, 12:02 PM
 
The discrimination is in the funds distributed to the rural vs. urban poor. I bet you can still find a meth treatment center in Bangor.

As I said, I think there are legit reasons for this (not closing the treatment centers, the lopsided distribution of funds), but that's a hard sell to the person who ends up with the short end of the stick. I don't expect them to go along without significant effort on my part.

The empathy breakdown happens when "these people vote against their self-interest" gets whipped out... by the people handing them the short end of the stick.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2017, 02:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Was it unfair of me to lay those arguments at the feet of the Democrats? In my experience they're quite common. The first (poor Republicans vote against their self-interest) is as old as the hills.

I personally find those types of arguments cringeworthy. Is this a zero-sum game? The unavoidable result of holding Democrats accountable for those arguments is a tack to the right?

That would be ironic because my goal is to stop the Democrats from losing to an utter moron... again.
How is this different from the Republican trope of minorities voting against their own interest? Really, when you boil it down, most every political argument against the opposition is that voting for 'those guys' is against your 'self-interest.'

I guess the biggest difference between dems and repubs is that you feel it necessary to call out the left for it's cliches and ignore pretty much the exact same damn thing from the republicans.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2017, 04:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As I said, I think there are legit reasons for this (not closing the treatment centers, the lopsided distribution of funds), but that's a hard sell to the person who ends up with the short end of the stick. I don't expect them to go along without significant effort on my part.
Urban centers may also have treatment centers that are paid for by, say, donations or charities whereas if you close a program in rural areas, it tends to be the only one and in poor areas it is harder to collect enough charitable contributions to make up the difference. Plus, things get even harder when they are perceived to be a zero sum game, for urban minorities to win, white blue collar workers have to lose.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The empathy breakdown happens when "these people vote against their self-interest" gets whipped out... by the people handing them the short end of the stick.
But this trope exists also on the GOP side when it comes to minorities, and it is equally short-sighted. Even if you are right, you still have to contend with the fact that you are not convincing voters, be it red necks in the middle of nowhere and the Democratic Party or minorities living in big cities and the GOP.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2017, 10:34 AM
 
@Paco and Oreo

Can I get an example of the trope of Republicans saying minorities voting for Democrats are voting against their self interest?

I understand asking this question could be used as evidence I'm ignoring the phenomenon.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2017, 10:41 AM
 
Trump's campaign toward POC: democrats haven't done crap for you, you're poor, it can only get better with me.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2017, 10:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Trump's campaign toward POC: democrats haven't done crap for you, you're poor, it can only get better with me.
If this is the best example, I'll address it, but I'm not sure it's correct to call Trumpian populism something they've been doing long enough it has become a Republican trope.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2017, 12:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
@Paco and Oreo

Can I get an example of the trope of Republicans saying minorities voting for Democrats are voting against their self interest?

I understand asking this question could be used as evidence I'm ignoring the phenomenon.
It's fairly common actually.

HOW THE LIBERAL WELFARE STATE DESTROYED BLACK AMERICA | FrontPageMag.com

EDITORIAL: The not-so-Great Society turns a rickety 50 - Washington Times

African-Americans should start voting for Republicans, again | Fox News

Articles: How Democrats Exploit Minorities

You'll notice how the arguments tend to focus on the black underclass, welfare, and other entitlement programs. As if that even remotely constitutes the majority of African-American voters. But it certainly eflects the stereotypes that many white Americans ... Dem and GOP alike and especially Mr. Trump ... buy into. I submit that if the first thing that pops into one's head when discussing the African-American community and politics is "welfare" and/or "crime" then one really ought to reconsider their assumptions.

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2017, 12:18 PM
 
Thank you!

I thought this may be what was being talked about, but wasn't sure.

I shall drum up a response.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2017, 01:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Thank you!

I thought this may be what was being talked about, but wasn't sure.

I shall drum up a response.
No worries.

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2017, 01:46 PM
 
I read the first link and the FOX link, so this only applies to those two.

I think there are valid points buried in there, but there's a colossal empathy breakdown going on.

Further, at least the subtext of the left's claim is the rural poor are idiots. The subtext here is those who champion social programs for the urban poor are diabolical. I think both are invented conclusions, but the left get to theirs from being oblivious. This is rooted in anger.

Well, I feel the left had gotten there through obliviousness. With Trump I'm worried it might get substituted with anger.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2017, 03:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I read the first link and the FOX link, so this only applies to those two.

I think there are valid points buried in there, but there's a colossal empathy breakdown going on.

Further, at least the subtext of the left's claim is the rural poor are idiots. The subtext here is those who champion social programs for the urban poor are diabolical. I think both are invented conclusions, but the left get to theirs from being oblivious. This is rooted in anger.

Well, I feel the left had gotten there through obliviousness. With Trump I'm worried it might get substituted with anger.
I wouldn't use the term "idiots". I think it's more an issue of "cognitive dissonance". One of the problems with dog-whistle politics is that it encourages the notion that public assistance programs are a "racial" issue. So those who buy into that become more likely to "cut off your nose to spite your face". You see this with Newt Gingrich going around calling Obama a "Food Stamp President" with all the racial resentment that was bound to encourage given the politically expedient Southern Strategy .... yet in 2012 Mitt Romney still managed to win 213 out of the 254 counties where food stamp used doubled during the Great Recession.

Food Stamp Cut Backed by Republicans With Voters on Rolls | Bloomberg.com

Or the Trump voters who manage to convince themselves that repealing Obamacare magically doesn't apply to them ... he only meant those "other" people..

These coal country voters backed Trump. Now they’re worried about losing Obamacare. | WashingtonPost.com

Trump voters didn’t take him literally on Obamacare. Oops? | WashingtonPost.com

This Trump voter didn't think Trump was serious about repealing her health insurance | Vox.com

So it's pretty hard not to see the truth in associating Mr. Trump's politics with what's being expressed here.



But I suppose it's possible I'm missing something and there's an alternative explanation?

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jan 4, 2017 at 03:17 PM. )
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2017, 04:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I read the first link and the FOX link, so this only applies to those two.

I think there are valid points buried in there, but there's a colossal empathy breakdown going on.

Further, at least the subtext of the left's claim is the rural poor are idiots. The subtext here is those who champion social programs for the urban poor are diabolical. I think both are invented conclusions, but the left get to theirs from being oblivious. This is rooted in anger.

Well, I feel the left had gotten there through obliviousness. With Trump I'm worried it might get substituted with anger.



At the end of the day does it matter if Republicans or Democrats are more to blame if this is indeed a cultural issue? A cultural issue like this has a huge emotional component, and all humans have emotions.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2017, 11:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
@Paco and Oreo

Can I get an example of the trope of Republicans saying minorities voting for Democrats are voting against their self interest?
I've heard Ben Shapiro use this exact phrase in one of his pod/videocasts, for instance, but I've heard this argument many times over. Since OAW has collected a few links, I won't bother duplicating his work, unless you really want me to.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think there are valid points buried in there, but there's a colossal empathy breakdown going on.
Either claim makes total sense if start from the conclusion, i. e. if you (the impersonal you) believe that Democratic/Republican policies would lead to a better life, then of course these people are voting “against their interest”. After all, people, even the majority of people can be wrong about all sorts of things, including questions of policy. But if the bulk of, say, African Americans/white rural Americans believes they are worse off voting for the GOP/Democrats, then you can't start from the conclusion that you have come to — it's obvious only to you. And of course, you could be wrong with your conclusion, too.

Plus, there are many ways to weigh pros and cons, so it might even be possible to arrive at different conclusions even after agreeing on all of the facts. We read about Trump voters who hope that he doesn't touch Obamacare, for instance, or Trump voters who voted for him to get a conservative Supreme Court Judge appointed. Minorities may value a life with less discrimination more than economic development.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Further, at least the subtext of the left's claim is the rural poor are idiots. The subtext here is those who champion social programs for the urban poor are diabolical. I think both are invented conclusions, but the left get to theirs from being oblivious. This is rooted in anger.

Well, I feel the left had gotten there through obliviousness. With Trump I'm worried it might get substituted with anger.
I think these are more your suppositions than anything else. Why don't you talk to more liberals instead of making assumptions.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2017, 06:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think both are invented conclusions, but the left get to theirs from being oblivious. This is rooted in anger.
I would argue that your conclusion here is rooted in bias. Are there some on the left who are driven by anger- of course. Lots of people from all walks of life are angry. But I would argue that the prevailing emotion is, as worst, frustration. I don't imagine this is any different from those on the right.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2017, 10:07 AM
 
My apologies... I used a vague subject here.

The "this" in "this is based in anger" was directed at the examples given by OAW.

I'm saying "at least when Democrats do it they're being oblivious, these Republican examples are angry".

Since I'm already going in and doctoring the paragraph, "rooted in spite" would have been better than anger.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2017, 11:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think these are more your suppositions than anything else. Why don't you talk to more liberals instead of making assumptions.
I pretty much only talk to liberals. I live in Chicago. Everyone here is liberal.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2017, 01:46 PM
 
Nowadays too many on the Left aren't "liberal", however.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2017, 05:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
You genuinely seem to have tacked hard to the right since the election- or at least have become much more hostile to progressives, regressives, democrats, or what ever you want to call us/them.
I don't think subego has tacked right at all - i think the left has tacked even harder left to the point that anything less than the 100% liberal narrative is now racist, corrupt, and about 400 other buzzwords the liberal media is using to shame people into agreeing with them.

We are not all in lock-step agreement any more than all Republicans or Libertarians are. I think most good hearted people of all political persuasions genuinely want the best for the greatest number of people. Those of us on the left just happen to think that while both have some pretty fundamental flaws, Government is a better way to solve the big problems than the free market.
This is where your ideology fails you, as the things you want the government to do are not only way out of scope for the role of an effective democratic government but also in that - and this is a big part of why I believe the liberals got destroyed this cycle - the ends justify the means....always. A jive back towards center would make the democratic party viable again.....or even just showing a little humility and respect for differing perspectives. It's a feeding frenzy of liberal angst.

The how is as important as the what - and the left lost sight of that. For instance:

65 Million Americans Should Threaten to Not Pay Taxes

Seriously? Who would fund all the entitlements then?

By and large, we are not bad people who hate poor white people and think all Christians are terrible and love terrorists and hate freedom. Regardless of the opinions you seem to have formed, we are a fairly nuanced bunch.
No, but your ideology is dangerous as it concentrates too much social power in an organization that over the last 8 years has shown that the ends justify the means, no matter how much of our rule of law must be ignored to do so. You also think too much of yourselves in the way you present your views for others to contemplate. It's either "with us" or "racist". Quite simply, your kool-aid is putrid and reeks of a spoiled teenager not getting their way.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2017, 05:50 PM
 
whereas your kool-aid is orange flavored.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2017, 07:53 PM
 
Snow-i: I really don't understand arguments like yours that liberals in the US have moved really far left.

Relative to what? To where things were before? If so, you make it seem like this is some sort of strange place to be. It is definitely not strange at all when you look at this relative to the rest of the world, and why shouldn't we? I'm tired of this idea that Americans are really unique and therefore we shouldn't look at other countries for a point of reference. Human beings are human beings, they like free stuff, low taxes, hate government waste and corruption, some are lazy, some are industrious, etc. and the mentality of these Americans is really not that different from any other person living in a first world country.

Among the rest of the world Americans are oddly unique when it comes to their love of guns and gun murder rates. They are oddly unique when it comes to health care costs, money in government, and a number of other ways too, but when people want America to pivot further to the left on these issues that doesn't necessarily put America in some sort of strange unprecedented place that human beings have never found success in before, it could just mean that the US was so oddly unbalanced in issues like this before that some just want to try something a little more "normal", relative to what human beings have tried globally.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2017, 02:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I wouldn't use the term "idiots". I think it's more an issue of "cognitive dissonance". One of the problems with dog-whistle politics is that it encourages the notion that public assistance programs are a "racial" issue. So those who buy into that become more likely to "cut off your nose to spite your face". You see this with Newt Gingrich going around calling Obama a "Food Stamp President" with all the racial resentment that was bound to encourage given the politically expedient Southern Strategy .... yet in 2012 Mitt Romney still managed to win 213 out of the 254 counties where food stamp used doubled during the Great Recession.

Food Stamp Cut Backed by Republicans With Voters on Rolls | Bloomberg.com
I can see both sides.

On one hand, there's no argument food stamps are used as a wedge issue, and some people say "food stamps" as code for black people.

On the other hand...

Lake County Illinois, richest county in the state.
Per capita income: $38,120
Percentage of population on SNAP: 9.7%

Perry County Illinois, poorest county in the state with over 20K population. Fourth from poorest.
Per capita income: $17,926
Percentage of population on SNAP: 14.6%

Doesn't that seem off?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2017, 05:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I don't think subego has tacked right at all
Thank you.

I feel a little stuck between a rock and a hard place. It's not like I want to defend the guy. Trump's most likely going to be an unmitigated disaster.

It seems like it would be really easy for terrorists to push Trump's buttons. I'm sure a bunch want to find out. Things of this nature are the existential threat, not the cleanup of the mess he made from rooting around in the garbage.

Or Russia, who while annoying at times, basically like us.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2017, 04:46 PM
 
You have to wonder what happened to tough negotiator Trump who wasn't going to take any shit from Putin or anyone while Obama has been so supposedly weak. He seems to have become Putin's boot licker instead. Is that not the sort of thing that should piss Trump voters off? I feel like an adequate fuss is not being made.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2017, 03:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Thank you.

I feel a little stuck between a rock and a hard place. It's not like I want to defend the guy. Trump's most likely going to be an unmitigated disaster.
That's about how I feel as well - yet in my indictment above the only response I get is "Your cool-aid is orange flavored" - making my arguments for me . I did not support Trump through the election - I'm still skeptical of him going forward, but at least it's not 4 more years of the same corrupt, campaign style governance we've had for the last 8.

It seems like it would be really easy for terrorists to push Trump's buttons. I'm sure a bunch want to find out. Things of this nature are the existential threat, not the cleanup of the mess he made from rooting around in the garbage.

Or Russia, who while annoying at times, basically like us.
The fiery, reality-TV style rhetoric coming from Trump in the lead up to the election, IMO, did exactly what it was meant to do: Rile up the vast, silent portion of the population who due to the color of their skin were labeled as "privileged, racist" and most importantly "responsible for all the problems in this society". The liberals and the media that align with them ate it up hook, line and sinker. The election was a sound rejection of that notion. The liberals made a fatal mistake when they essentially said "With us or RACIST!", drawing lines in the sand that did not exist in the mainstream until they themselves put them there.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2017, 03:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You have to wonder what happened to tough negotiator Trump who wasn't going to take any shit from Putin or anyone while Obama has been so supposedly weak. He seems to have become Putin's boot licker instead. Is that not the sort of thing that should piss Trump voters off? I feel like an adequate fuss is not being made.
I think the liberals are all fussed out. They blew their wad on the lead up to the election - an election that proved that America in general is wary of embracing a bunch of fussy liberals after those same liberals showed that unless we agree 100% with their narrative, we're going to get the fuss.

Trump has yet to govern a day in his life, and you've already chalked up his foreign policy around Russia based on...well...I'm not really sure what you're basing that on, other than your own intolerance for views that aren't in lock step with yours.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2017, 04:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
The fiery, reality-TV style rhetoric coming from Trump in the lead up to the election, IMO, did exactly what it was meant to do: Rile up the vast, silent portion of the population who due to the color of their skin were labeled as "privileged, racist" and most importantly "responsible for all the problems in this society". The liberals and the media that align with them ate it up hook, line and sinker. The election was a sound rejection of that notion. The liberals made a fatal mistake when they essentially said "With us or RACIST!", drawing lines in the sand that did not exist in the mainstream until they themselves put them there.

Where on earth is this coming from?

The major moment that I recall having to do with race was the "Mexicans bringing rapists" moment. Liberals were more riled up about his treatment of women, as well any decent human being should.

I'm pretty sure that the majority of the population disliked most of these comments, it was just that many disliked Hillary Clinton more, thought that Trump would bring their jobs back, wanted a business person in charge, etc. Many conservatives had reservations with Trump's temperament.

I think what you are talking about comes back to empathy. Those that didn't have much of a problem with his temperament and the things he was saying I would argue had/have empathy issues. Perhaps what you are trying to say is that Liberals tried to paint all Trump supporters this way. If so, I guess I'd agree with that, but I disagree that this election was about racism.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2017, 07:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm pretty sure that the majority of the population disliked most of these comments, it was just that many disliked Hillary Clinton more, thought that Trump would bring their jobs back, wanted a business person in charge, etc.
Considering the fact that 3 MILLION more people voted for Clinton than Trump this really isn't accurate. Trump got lucky from an Electoral College perspective. That is all.

OAW
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2017, 08:43 PM
 
I meant among the people that ended up voting for Trump.
( Last edited by besson3c; Jan 8, 2017 at 09:27 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2017, 09:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The major moment that I recall having to do with race was the "Mexicans bringing rapists" moment.
What about the alt-right?
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2017, 09:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What about the alt-right?
To me the alt-right is just a fear based group that is uncomfortable with anything that poses a perceived threat to them, whether it is a specific race, immigration policy, culture, etc. I don't see them as a specific racially focused group like, say, the KKK.

I could be wrong though. I would hope that there would be no disagreement in here that this population is scary.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2017, 09:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I think the liberals are all fussed out. They blew their wad on the lead up to the election - an election that proved that America in general is wary of embracing a bunch of fussy liberals after those same liberals showed that unless we agree 100% with their narrative, we're going to get the fuss.

Trump has yet to govern a day in his life, and you've already chalked up his foreign policy around Russia based on...well...I'm not really sure what you're basing that on, other than your own intolerance for views that aren't in lock step with yours.
I'm basing it on the things Trump says. Not that they mean shit. He'll flip flop with the wind as long as conservatives keep letting him get away with whatever the **** he wants.
What America proved in the election is that it still belongs to the rich white man.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2017, 10:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
To me the alt-right is just a fear based group that is uncomfortable with anything that poses a perceived threat to them, whether it is a specific race, immigration policy, culture, etc. I don't see them as a specific racially focused group like, say, the KKK.

I could be wrong though. I would hope that there would be no disagreement in here that this population is scary.
Okay... how's about white nationalists?

That's a race thing, right?
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2017, 10:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Okay... how's about white nationalists?

That's a race thing, right?
How big do you think this group is?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2017, 12:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
How big do you think this group is?
You tell me.

Search terms are "white" and "nationalist". Range is June 1st to November 1st. Results confined to the Washington Post.

"Top Nazi Leader: Trump will be a 'real opportunity' for white nationalists..."

"Today, Clinton will accuse Trump of 'mainstreaming" hate and white... [nationalism]"

"Trump's real endgame: A white nationalist media empire?"

"A lot of Donald Trump Jr.'s trail missteps seem to involve white nationalists and Nazis"

"These charts show exactly how racist and radical the alt-right has..."

"'Racialists' are cheered by Trump's latest strategy"

"Yes, half of Trump supporters are racist"

"Trump's destructive validation of racists"
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2017, 01:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'm basing it on the things Trump says. Not that they mean shit. He'll flip flop with the wind as long as conservatives keep letting him get away with whatever the **** he wants.
What America proved in the election is that it still belongs to the rich white man.
As opposed to the rich white woman?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2017, 01:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Snow-i: I really don't understand arguments like yours that liberals in the US have moved really far left.

Relative to what? To where things were before? If so, you make it seem like this is some sort of strange place to be. It is definitely not strange at all when you look at this relative to the rest of the world, and why shouldn't we? I'm tired of this idea that Americans are really unique and therefore we shouldn't look at other countries for a point of reference. Human beings are human beings, they like free stuff, low taxes, hate government waste and corruption, some are lazy, some are industrious, etc. and the mentality of these Americans is really not that different from any other person living in a first world country.

Among the rest of the world Americans are oddly unique when it comes to their love of guns and gun murder rates. They are oddly unique when it comes to health care costs, money in government, and a number of other ways too, but when people want America to pivot further to the left on these issues that doesn't necessarily put America in some sort of strange unprecedented place that human beings have never found success in before, it could just mean that the US was so oddly unbalanced in issues like this before that some just want to try something a little more "normal", relative to what human beings have tried globally.
So you're saying we're not unique, then go on to list all the ways you believe we are unique?

Considering the scoreboard, even to this day - I'd say our "uniqueness" has worked out pretty well for us.

Our poverty stricken have a better standard of living then most of the people on the planet. We paved the way for democracy across the globe (it didn't really exist before we came along and demonstrated it as an extremely successful model). We kept communist aggression in check. There are countless other contributions the US has made to humanity as a whole. Does that mean we shouldn't keep going? Absolutely not, but to discount our "uniqueness" is to discount the reality of what made us so successful in the first place.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2017, 01:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'm basing it on the things Trump says. Not that they mean shit. He'll flip flop with the wind as long as conservatives keep letting him get away with whatever the **** he wants.
What America proved in the election is that it still belongs to the rich white man.
After we voted a black man in twice for 8 years? Riight.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2017, 03:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
So you're saying we're not unique, then go on to list all the ways you believe we are unique?
"Unique" is usually read by conservatives as some extension of American exceptionalism. Americans are better than everyone else. More hard working, smarter, more industrious, more enlightened, more individualistic - these thoughts are usually evoked when we discuss American "Uniqueness."

Besson listed several negative ways in which American is unique. Did you miss that?

Considering the scoreboard, even to this day - I'd say our "uniqueness" has worked out pretty well for us.
Yes, but what's on your scoreboard? Wealth inequality? Quality of life? Life expectancy? Familial stability? Quality of education? Vertical inter-generational mobility?

Those are all good indicators of a healthy society (and things the US may have lead the world in at some point) but the US certainly doesn't lead the world in all (any?) of them.

Our poverty stricken have a better standard of living then most of the people on the planet.
That's irrelevant - what about other similar developed nations? How do we treat prisoners, drug addicts, the disabled, and those in poverty? Are those groups better or worse off in other countries? What does that say about how much we value the sanctity and dignity of human life?

We paved the way for democracy across the globe (it didn't really exist before we came along and demonstrated it as an extremely successful model). We kept communist aggression in check.
And all of the times that the US steamrolled a native democratic movement for a dictator that was friendly to the US's interests - Iran, Guatemala, Vietnam, Haiti, and more?

A Timeline of CIA Atrocities

How many of those lines begin with "The CIA overthrows the democratically-elected ___________ and installs a military leader/dictator with abysmal human rights records."? The US doesn't champion democracy worldwide, the US champions US interests worldwide.

There are countless other contributions the US has made to humanity as a whole. Does that mean we shouldn't keep going? Absolutely not, but to discount our "uniqueness" is to discount the reality of what made us so successful in the first place.
The point isn't that the US doesn't do good things or isn't good at lots of things, the point is to take an honest look at everything that has happened and to understand why quite a few people are disenfranchised with what the US has become.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2017, 03:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
"Unique" is usually read by conservatives as some extension of American exceptionalism. Americans are better than everyone else. More hard working, smarter, more industrious, more enlightened, more individualistic - these thoughts are usually evoked when we discuss American "Uniqueness."

Besson listed several negative ways in which American is unique. Did you miss that?
That's a false premise. Unique simply means ways we are different, for better and for worse.


Yes, but what's on your scoreboard? Wealth inequality? Quality of life? Life expectancy? Familial stability? Quality of education? Vertical inter-generational mobility?
We'll go with an easy one - GDP per capita.

Those are all good indicators of a healthy society (and things the US may have lead the world in at some point) but the US certainly doesn't lead the world in all (any?) of them.
All of those things take a **** ton of money to accomplish good numbers for. Considering we're still handing out aid to 95% of countries on earth, I'd say we're still ahead of the game. Find me a developed country with a better stat in any of those categories that we aren't providing aid to - then we can measure.


That's irrelevant - what about other similar developed nations?
There are no similar developed nations. The two closest you could get would be China and Russia, mayyyyybe India also.

How do we treat prisoners, drug addicts, the disabled, and those in poverty? Are those groups better or worse off in other countries? What does that say about how much we value the sanctity and dignity of human life?
Similar developed countries? They have it way better here. Go be American poor in China or India - you'll still be in the top 5%.


And all of the times that the US steamrolled a native democratic movement for a dictator that was friendly to the US's interests - Iran, Guatemala, Vietnam, Haiti, and more?

A Timeline of CIA Atrocities

How many of those lines begin with "The CIA overthrows the democratically-elected ___________ and installs a military leader/dictator with abysmal human rights records."? The US doesn't champion democracy worldwide, the US champions US interests worldwide.
I didn't say we were perfect, nor that I agree with everything we've done ever.

Can you name a similar developed nation in that regard? Let's compare records then.

The point isn't that the US doesn't do good things or isn't good at lots of things, the point is to take an honest look at everything that has happened and to understand why quite a few people are disenfranchised with what the US has become.
I think it's more accurate to say these people have become disenfranchised with what the US hasn't become - or at least that's the way I interpret it. The things being demanded have never been a reality here, or really anywhere in the history of our species. We've gotten the closest to acheiving those aims, and I don't think we should stop striving for them. I just think it's ridiculous to let perfect be the enemy of good. Progress is slow, but we're still making it, each and every day. The framework of our country and our special place atop the economic food chain is exactly what enables us to make that progress, and help others make that progress in the form of aid.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2017, 09:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
As opposed to the rich white woman?
Yes. Among others.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2017, 10:34 PM
 
Snow-i, do you think there is anything America can learn from from another country, or is nothing applicable? Do you think this attitude of exceptionalism (or however you want to call it) has led to complacency and job loss? Do you think all of America's successes are the direct result of its political policies, or in spite of them?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2017, 12:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
We'll go with an easy one - GDP per capita.
Okay?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...PP)_per_capita

The US places 11th, behind
1 Qatar 132,870
2 Luxembourg 99,506
3 Singapore 85,382
4 Brunei 79,508
5 Kuwait 70,542
6 Norway 68,591
7 United Arab Emirates 67,217
8 Ireland 65,806
9 San Marino 62,938
10 Switzerland 58,647
11 Hong Kong 56,878
12 United States 56,084

I'm not trying to cherry-pick results that back my agenda, that's literally the first Google result for "countries gdp per capita" and Wikipedia is pretty neutral AFAIK.

All of those things take a **** ton of money to accomplish good numbers for. Considering we're still handing out aid to 95% of countries on earth, I'd say we're still ahead of the game. Find me a developed country with a better stat in any of those categories that we aren't providing aid to - then we can measure.


There are no similar developed nations. The two closest you could get would be China and Russia, mayyyyybe India also.


Similar developed countries? They have it way better here. Go be American poor in China or India - you'll still be in the top 5%.
It sounds like my use of "developed" threw you off. Apparently it's now offensive to use the terms "first world" and "third world," so I'm trying to use "developed" and "developing." I think you interpreted my use of "developed" as meaning "as good as the US" or "as big as the US" or "as populous as the US" and you don't believe there's any country as good, big, or populous as the US.

I'm talking about other first world countries, of which there are plenty.

So I guess I still don't see why the US is the "best" country in the world. You've yet to produce a metric that will back that up, especially with all of the huge areas I mentioned earlier where the US falls short.
( Last edited by Laminar; Jan 10, 2017 at 12:30 PM. )
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:52 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,