This is really fricking big. I'm sorry, guys.
Let's review.
Up until now, we've as a country been politely ignoring that a great deal of people are still so incensed by the thought of illegal immigrants, or ghetto crime, or abortion rights, that someone could get up and break the paradigm of acceptable angles on the whole thing by being directly hostile. We'll put the illegals in trucks and dump them back in Mexico. We'll empower police to clean out the ghettos. We'll punish women who get abortions.
The fact that saying all that helped him is the truly fucked reality of it all. There's no more room for ignoring that shit. The people who believe it have stood up and gotten their man in the White House whether they were the Secret Key To Victory or not. We have to do better than that.
MSH is saying that:
1. Trump is racist.
2. He still won.
(3). Being racist helped him win.
4. Therefore, many voters are racist.
I
could see a possible error in there, but quite frankly the fact that he won
despite being racist as fuck is horrifying.
MSH also notes that racism is unacceptable and wrong. This is probably agreed upon by everybody. Hopefully.
(he means unacceptable, presumably, as "something which is wrong and which we should work against and attempt to prevent or remove")
The middle paragraph especially disturbs me, because it really just feels like a blanket condemnation of anyone who disagrees with you. What, if you disagree with illegal immigration, would you feel is within the "paradigm of acceptable angles" to do about it? Or is the problem simply that anyone who gets to the disagreeing part is already hideously wrong to begin with?
And IO misinterprets MSH as saying "everybody who disagrees with me is unacceptable and wrong".
If you think we should try to round Hispanic people up and throw them over the border, imprison women exercising their reproductive rights, or refuse to address police executions so we can be all tough on crime, then yes, you are a bad person. If we think that believing things can make you a bad person, that is. I suppose one could take the view that you can believe America should ethnically cleanse the streets in a hail of gunfire and beat gay children until they decide to be normal without acting on it and so you're absolutely neutral because you don't do anything.
There is plenty of room to be reasonable about illegal immigration without agreeing with me. I'm not even absolutely certain what we should do about it. Donald Trump's expressed views are not within that range.
Also, the paradigm of angles is not about what should or should not be tolerated, it's about how politics has worked in the past vs. what Trump did. Some of the GOP advocated for deportation, but they did so from say, the idea that we have to have a fair immigration process and support our own laws. Compare to Trump's rather direct version of the underlying idea: Mexicans are rapists, BUILD WALL.
MSH notes that he's fine if people disagree, it's just that he doesn't accept overt, blatant racism.
I'd argue believing this makes you a far worse person than someone who's pro-life. I'd argue something else, in fact, but I suspect it'd enrage you well beyond the utility it'd provide.
Which is exactly the kind of concession I have in mind when I say this makes you a bad person. If you have questionable beliefs, you can still, in theory, productively work with others. On the most basic level this means just not causing a scene with people you don't like, but it ramps up to all sorts of fun things. Including, at the very best case, exchanging information productively enough to shift those beliefs.
The most problematic beliefs, then, are those that drown out those possibilities. If you want all Mexicans hurled back to Mexico, you can still, in theory, have productive conversations and come to compromises with those that want something different. If you believe everyone who doesn't want all Mexicans hurled back over the wall is a traitor hippie, that potential rapidly vanishes.
You can potentially come back from anything if your mechanisms are still working. If they're not, you start gumming up and shrinking down. The end result is a literal, not-a-euphemism-for-racist bigot- someone who's vehemently stuck in their ways and will entertain no notions to the contrary, because they decided long ago that all notions to the contrary were the product of imbeciles and crooks.
So yes, I'll absolutely take someone who wants more police authority but is willing to understand why some might not over someone who wants to clean up the police and feels anyone who feels differently is an animal.
IO uses Strawman! It's very effective!
IO basically says:
A. Your post shows that you are a true bigot (in the actual, non-euphemistic sense).
(B. Bigoted = bad)
C. Therefore, you are bad.
But MSH's post
wasn't bigoted! He even
pointed out that he's
fine with disagreement. He only was unaccepting of blatant racism. Which is okay. This makes IO's logical statement into
A. You say that racism is bad and unacceptable.
C. Therefore, you are bad.
Anybody notice the problem with this statement? (Hint: it's self-referential if you tweak it a bit.)
I, at this point, am
very pissed. I got a bit defensive, I will admit. Here's my post again.
It's not. A "shock jock" is somebody who says outrageous things because they're outrageous. You don't have to be a bad person to enjoy them- in fact, being offended by them is literally a primary reason to enjoy them.
So he's either a bigot, an intentional bigot-courter, or a bigot-courter by happenchance. That doesn't change the fact that people voted for him despite his bigoted language. That's horrifying.
No attacks on forumites here. I say that some people are bigots. (
No shit, Sherlock!) This is an attack, sort of, but only in the sense of "saying something that offends people." It's logically derived from true statements. Note that I don't say "half" or "most" Trump-voters are bigots.
More relevantly in this case, it's a great way to get attention and suggest a lack of social restraint or conformity.
Hey, look at me! I have no self-restraint! I say whatever the hell I want to say, no matter the consequences! You should totally vote me in as President! [emphasis mine]
Note the last sentence. I was mocking Trump and his supposed pro of "no restraint." I was mocking IO, in a sense, but it was not an attack on IO, nor was it "nothing but an attack." I was pissed off and made my point angrily. There is still a point.
The former is useful for obvious reasons, while the latter is an excellent quality to display when the usual rules are terrible, as in the case of lying shills who never do what they say they will, don't actually care about their constituents, and other mean things people say about "normal" politicians.
Lol, how is a lack of restraint a good thing?
Good question, Doz! By the way, this isn't an attack.
To the whole thing: Alright, gimme some numbers.
Sure, send me the mindreading laser satellite and I'll get right on that.
So you have no idea. Could be five of them in a remote cabin in Alaska, could be everyone south of Jersey. But you're utterly convinced that they compose vast hordes causing massive damage to... something. "Us," I suppose.
There are no numbers, so it cannot be known. Suuuuuuure.
Sarcasm. Not an attack. Also, it's true - we can know, fairly certainly, that people are bigots. Trump got as many votes as the previous Republicans, despite being a bigot. How
many people are bigots? Harder to know, but I've shown that it's possible to know something without numbers.
You know who else thinks and talks like that? Literally everyone, but most notably the people concerned about, you know, Mexican rapists and such. The ones convinced there's enemies out there, and Trump is going to make everyone safe by fixing that little problem. The issue being that they're too far into their ideology and related bullshit to care overmuch about reality.
Yeah, since there are no numbers, we're basically the same as Trump supporters. Reeks of a false equivalency, methinks.
I'm noting a fallacy. That is not a direct attack. Furthermore, here's the fallacy:
A. You are saying that there are enemies, and that wrongness is unacceptable.
B. Trump supporters say that there are enemies, and that we should "disappear" those enemies.
C. Therefore, you are like a Trump supporter.
D. Trump supporters don't care about reality.
E. Therefore, since you say that there are enemies, you don't care about reality.
This is a false equivalency, guys, it's pretty obvious.I mean, do you not think Imported Rape is a problem? You're probably not a fan of rape or letting it continue unabated. But you're probably also pretty sure the numbers on that are pretty negligible, and that anyone trying to push it as a major problem is a jackass. And if I asked one of them what the numbers were, what do you think they'd say? "Sure, here's the latest figures"? Or "Geez, I dunno, I don't have a mind reading laser, but it's a serious problem!"?
I think that there is a problem because people voted for a blatant bigot. That implies that either people don't give a shit about his bigotry, or they like his bigotry, or they think that bigotry's not that important. Either possibility is bad.
Good point, Doz. Also note the distinct lack of insults, and the distinct presence of a point.
Because this really just sounds like the same tribal shield-thumping you see with every political zealot, talking about The Other whose crimes and influence have grown so great that they Can No Longer Be Ignored.
Why do I even bother? I spend all of my actual strategist time talking about how the left needs unity and understanding, and then I get this.
Right, the left. Your People. You spend all your time talking about how your group needs to unite and stand strong against the enemy group, then you're surprised when I call you partisan? Why would that be surprising?
Partisan =/= tribal shield-thumping. Thinking that people are wrong =/= tribal shield-thumping. Come on, this is stupid.
Good point, Doz. Note the existence of a point. I meant that the
point was stupid, the
topic of discussion was stupid. Not IO themselves. This could be
interpreted as an insult, but only by an idiot. I mean, come on! I said that
"this", not "you", is stupid!
Do you even understand the concept of subjectsThe middle paragraph especially disturbs me, because it really just feels like a blanket condemnation of anyone who disagrees with you. What, if you disagree with illegal immigration, would you feel is within the "paradigm of acceptable angles" to do about it? Or is the problem simply that anyone who gets to the disagreeing part is already hideously wrong to begin with?
If you think we should try to round Hispanic people up and throw them over the border, imprison women exercising their reproductive rights, or refuse to address police executions so we can be all tough on crime, then yes, you are a bad person. If we think that believing things can make you a bad person, that is. I suppose one could take the view that you can believe America should ethnically cleanse the streets in a hail of gunfire and beat gay children until they decide to be normal without acting on it and so you're absolutely neutral because you don't do anything.
I'd argue believing this makes you a far worse person than someone who's pro-life. I'd argue something else, in fact, but I suspect it'd enrage you well beyond the utility it'd provide.
"You think that things are wrong! And that believing in wrongness makes you a bad person!" ...yes, I think that.
"YOU ARE THE AWFULEST PERSON EVER" what the hell
Okay, exaggerated a little, but still a good point. And certainly not a strawman.
Which is exactly the kind of concession I have in mind when I say this makes you a bad person. If you have questionable beliefs, you can still, in theory, productively work with others. On the most basic level this means just not causing a scene with people you don't like, but it ramps up to all sorts of fun things. Including, at the very best case, exchanging information productively enough to shift those beliefs.
The most problematic beliefs, then, are those that drown out those possibilities. If you want all Mexicans hurled back to Mexico, you can still, in theory, have productive conversations and come to compromises with those that want something different. If you believe everyone who doesn't want all Mexicans hurled back over the wall is a traitor hippie, that potential rapidly vanishes.
You can potentially come back from anything if your mechanisms are still working. If they're not, you start gumming up and shrinking down. The end result is a literal, not-a-euphemism-for-racist bigot- someone who's vehemently stuck in their ways and will entertain no notions to the contrary, because they decided long ago that all notions to the contrary were the product of imbeciles and crooks.
So yes, I'll absolutely take someone who wants more police authority but is willing to understand why some might not over someone who wants to clean up the police and feels anyone who feels differently is an animal.
Oh bloody hell, show me where anybody called bigots animals. I am utterly flabbergasted. We have called things wrong. Nobody has said that wrong people shouldn't be listened to, or compromised with. And yet you call us worse than the Trump supporters, just because we call bigotry wrong.
Hey, good point! You're noting how MSH has been strawmanned into a position of bigotry, even though he said nothing bigoted.
Note the existence of a point.Okaaaaaaaaaaay, have fun in your own pocket-universe of insanity, because we obviously aren't living in the same universe.
The "insanity" wasn't necessary, I will admit. I meant "what the hell, it's like we're reading different posts, but it's the
same post, how the hell was MSH bigoted".
There is plenty of room to be reasonable about illegal immigration without agreeing with me. I'm not even absolutely certain what we should do about it. Donald Trump's expressed views are not within that range.
Also, the paradigm of angles is not about what should or should not be tolerated, it's about how politics has worked in the past vs. what Trump did. Some of the GOP advocated for deportation, but they did so from say, the idea that we have to have a fair immigration process and support our own laws. Compare to Trump's rather direct version of the underlying idea: Mexicans are rapists, BUILD WALL.
So name some. Or are you saying it's the underlying tone that matters? In which case, same question for tone. What tones are acceptable yet differ from yours?
Define "acceptable". I think that the BUILD WALL people, as well as the "deportation [which actually means throw them out]", are wrong. Does that mean that I think their statements are unacceptable?
Hey, I'm asking for clarification! That's good! It's also not an insult.
I will listen to people who I think are wrong. I will not shut them up. I can engage in rational debate with wrong people. This is what separates me from the EVIL BAD TRUMP SUPPORTER PEOPLE who you are comparing us to.
Let's focus on reading comprehension for a second.
I am distinguishing between
me and
bigots by basically defining the absence of bigotry.
I am
not distinguishing between
me and
IO by calling IO a bigot.
Are we good here?
(Wait a fucking second, you're using the Other as a comparison to say "you're even worse." How interesting.)
In retrospect, IO might have been using TEH ENEMY because that's what MSH thinks is bad. This is not a good point. This is not an insult.
t. smug liberal jackass
I've never seen anyone hide behind so many strawmen. Everything you say is a gross exaggeration of a gross exaggeration. Even the Hillary campaign was more honest than you.
Okay, so we see a bunch of insults.
t. smug liberal jackass
I've never seen anyone hide behind so many strawmen. Everything you say is a gross exaggeration of a gross exaggeration. Even the Hillary campaign was more honest than you.
Chill dude. Don't resort to name calling. Not cool.
His entire response was nothing BUT name calling!
"He started it!" Besides,
where the hell is there name calling? Notably,
I never once name-called IO, or any other forumite! You crossed a line, bro.
t. smug liberal jackass
I've never seen anyone hide behind so many strawmen. Everything you say is a gross exaggeration of a gross exaggeration. Even the Hillary campaign was more honest than you.
Chill dude. Don't resort to name calling. Not cool.
His entire response was nothing BUT name calling!
Show me where in his his response he was name calling, because I sure as hell can't see any.
In this order. Please excuse the paraphrasing.
"You're a bigot!"
First, that was MSH. Second, he was talking about
a large proportion of Trump supporters, not a specific one. Second, accusations of bigotry are not necessarily name-calling - if they have reasoning and logic to back them up.
"You have no self restraint!"
"You have no self restraint!"
I was
talking about
Trump. IO
admitted that he had
minimal restraint. I was pointing out how that is a
fucking bad thing. No name-calling.
"I don't have to back up my wild claims!"
First, those were MSH's wild claims. Second, I was
noting how reality exists outside of studies, and that we don't need statistical analysis to wonder how a bigot becoming president might reflect upon the population. Third, that's not a name-calling, wtf?
"Since I can't back up my wild claims, you are just as bad as you say I am!"
Strawman, you hypocrite. I never called any forumite bad. I
did point out, in another part of my post, how IO's "calling people bad is bad" statement could easily be turned onto themselves, but that was only noting a flaw. It wasn't name-calling.
"You're a bigot that voted for a bigot!"
First, I didn't even
know who IO voted for. Second, I was noting how
many Trump-supporters were bigots. Not all.
"Nuh-uh! You!"
IO: "You are bad, because you are a bigot!"
Doz: "Hey, that's wrong!
*gives some logic to back self up*"
You're really bad at this "paraphrasing thing."
"I'm shocked, SHOCKED that you would insinuate I'm not the saint I portray myself as! You're crazy!"
1. I never said I was a saint.
2. I was defending MSH, not myself.
3. Also, I never said that MSH was a saint. Refuting false accusations of bigotry = calling MSH a saint, apparently. The more you know. /s
4. The "crazy" was referring to how IO saw bigotry in the statement "racism is bad and unacceptable". It was somewhat uncalled for; perhaps the only instance of name-calling.
"YES! You are bad people that want to throw innocent people out on the streets, but when did I ever say that? You see, unlike you, I sit down, listen to, and discuss things rationally, and without name-calling. This is why when you say I'm Satan, you're actually talking about yourself."
1. I never said that any forumite was a bigot.
2. I was noting how bigoted are defined by how they react to people who disagree.
3. I was noting how neither MSH nor myself fit that definition.
4. I was thus drawing a distinction between MSH+me and Trump-supporters, and invalidating the false comparison.
5. I never said that
all Trump-supporters were bigots, so there's basically no way I could have attacked anybody with this.
6. What the hell? That last sentence is
not what I said, at all. I made
no claims to the effect that IO was engaging in displacement of their own evilness onto MSH.
You going to call them sexist too? Even the girls who also make sexist jokes?
*sighs*
Some black people have re-appropriated "n******". This does not mean that you get to call them n*****s.
Some women are sexist toward women. Yes, this is possible. This does not mean that you get to be sexist too.
Author
Topic: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0 (Read 1420111 times)