6 ms·

This is an article essentially about how anxiety affects political views, so here's my experience on that matter. I'm an independent that leans conservative es

This is an article essentially about how anxiety affects political views, so here's my experience on that matter. I'm an independent that leans conservative especially on fiscal but also somewhat on social issues, and I know that my worry plays a part in it. I've voted for independents, Libertarians, Republicans, and Democrats in past presidential elections, and plan to vote Democrat this year, and I will do so because of my worry about the Republican candidate. This candidate is unpredictable, and is focused on the wrong side of issues that I care about. I'm a compassionate person, and the candidate is not. I'm also a Christian, and the candidate is the antithesis of the behavior and goals I would hope to have in my country's leader. And of course, I think that a woman should have a chance at leading our country, even if she's not the one that I'd chose typically. So, my anxiety will play a part in the election, but not in the way this article would suggest.

Kenji 10y ago
And of course, I think that a woman should have a chance at leading our country, even if she's not the one that I'd chose typically. This I find the worst argument for her presidency imaginable. "I am so virtuous and anti-sexist that I prefer the female candidate for being female" It's pure sexism. You stop being sexist when you leave the gender out of the equation. Completely.
- nxc18 10y ago
  The trouble is that so many people use that argument while completely ignoring their own biases. E.g. "I don't care that she's a woman, but she just doesn't look presidential." "I just don't trust her, she's too shrill." "I just don't trust her, she's too quiet." Look at all the media attention to her hair, her outfits, her skin, etc and you see that she's treated fundamentally differently than a male candidate. The presidency has been held by a male exclusively for so long that voters don't know what a female president looks like. When so many (shockingly many) people vote on gut, instinct, or just their emotion, taking the time to acknowledge bias is a useful step.
  - Kenji 10y ago
    Look at all the media attention to her hair I am not gonna lie, Trump's hair got much more coverage. She is not treated fundamentally different than a male candidate, except in a positive bias as in "I want to see a woman leading the country!" It is obvious that Hillary leverages gender-based tribalism to get the female vote (and the gentleman's). The argument that people are unconsciously biased is precisely such an emotionally manipulative argument to give Hillary a gender-based advantage. That does not work with people who are hardened against emotional manipulation though, like myself.
  - efvxcgci 10y ago
    > Look at all the media attention to her hair, her outfits, her skin, etc Strange comment to make considering the constant articles and social media posts about Trump's hair, Trump's orange skin, and Trump's little hands, plus the widespread coverage of the naked Trump painting and naked Trump statue that were created to mock his weight and body parts.
    - smallnamespace 10y ago
      Trump invites that sort of coverage by being a thin-skinned, narcissistic buffoon who thinks he's above everyone else. Case in point: The whole 'small hands' thing would've blown over if Trump had ignored it, but he couldn't help himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuSdCXmDOus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuSdCXmDOus
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  On the other hand, if you use conscious bias to counteract unconscious bias, that might lead you to the best decision. And it's valid to consider the externalities when you're making a political choice. The goal is a better future, after all, not maximizing fairness in the short-term. Still, it's a relatively minor factor with the way the current race has turned out. So we don't need to worry about those arguments.
  - Kenji 10y ago
    The goal is a better future, after all, not maximizing fairness in the short-term. That's why you shouldn't judge by gender, but by performance of the candidate. That just proves my point. If your goal is a better future and you make performance-based decisions, you will minimize biases like sexism all by itself because what is less discriminating than assessing raw performance?
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      Before you can have an unbiased result, you need an unbiased pool of candidates. A temporary bias in the last round is an attempt to help fix the clearly-broken funnel that leads there. It might not be the best way of doing things, but the plan is not obviously wrong or anything.
      - Kenji 10y ago
        Affirmative action is destructive. You are setting up people to fail by promoting them into positions they are not fit to take. Either they are qualified or they aren't. End of discussion. It's the same way with marks. Nobody is helped if a black person with bad marks gets into a college when they should not, and they end up not being able to handle the subjects and drop out later. Not only that - affirmative action is disrespectful. Women can do as well as men. I believe in it. But that is precisely why affirmative action is obsolete. Only those who think women cannot handle the work and cannot perform on par with men favour affirmative actions based on gender. In the German language, there's already a word for women who were promoted into positions they cannot handle because there are certain quotas to fill as required by law. This is called "Quotenfrau" and is incredibly derogatory.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  It's rational to say that "all other things being equal, I should choose the one that I'm most likely to be unconsciously biased against." Forget racism or sexism, that's how I choose software, which movie to go see, or which pair of pants to buy.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  This isn't a gift to Hillary, or a matter of fairness between her and Trump. It's an evaluation of her qualities on another (largely before-unseen) metric. If pure sexism got us better presidents the sexist decision would be the right one, but as you'll see, it isn't actually sexist. Imagine yourself as a sport team leader. You've normally picked large bruiser types and you say "Hmmm, I should try a lighter person with better speed." You don't know it'll work out, and it's "unfair" to the big bruisers, but it's a rational thing for a team leader to do. Considering that left-handed players often get a benefit from simply being unique, choosing a female president could pay out now even if in the long run there's no real difference.
FreeFull 10y ago
As a non-american watching from the side-lines, I feel like this presidential election will be a loss no matter which of the candidates wins.
- flueedo 10y ago
  I too watch from the sidelines, but I think that if I were a voter I would either not vote or vote third candidate. I wish there wasn't so many troubling things about Hillary's deals and ties.
  - anu7df 10y ago
    This is what I do not understand. If you are so troubled by Hilary, then make a stand against her. If you think Trump is worse (I do) then vote against him in a way that counts; vote for Hilary. This is not an election to sit on the sidelines. Make a choice that matters. This is not really directed at you per say, but to Americans who could vote and are expressing this "do not vote/ vote third party" sentiment. I can only guess that they are Trump supporters hoping a three way split helps them.
    - brainfire 10y ago
      "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?" "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course." "But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?" "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
    - Aaargh20318 10y ago
      > This is not an election to sit on the sidelines. Make a choice that matters. If you tell a kid that it's having green beans for dinner, it will throw a tantrum because it doesn't like green beans. If you ask it: "what do you want for dinner, green beans or spinach?", it will happily choose the beans because it likes spinach even less. The illusion of choice is a very powerful one. You get to choose from a grand total of 2 pre-vetted candidates. Do you really think it matters which one you pick ? The purpose of an election is not so the people can choose their leader, it's to make the people think they chose their leader. It prevents revolution.
throwanem 10y ago
It's an article that tries, not very subtly, to associate conservative political views with anxiety disorders. Pathologizing opinions is a tactic with a long and unlovely history (cf. "sluggish schizophrenia" under the Soviet regime) and one which I find considerably more concerning than the current electoral cycle. The republic is stronger than a corrupt apparatchik and a real estate swindler. But treating dissent as disease can get ugly fast.
- retox 10y ago
  What's more concerning is that this comes from the state run broadcaster. If you don't toe the party line there's something wrong with you.
  - JamesMcMinn 10y ago
    The BBC is not a state run broadcaster, and the current UK government is run by the Conservative Party.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      As I gather the matter, the BBC is subject to prior restraint under law, any time the Home Secretary chooses to invoke the relevant provision, as has been done for explicitly political reasons in the recent past with the Sinn Fein ban. That's close enough to "state broadcaster" for an ignorant colonial like me.
      - jon-wood 10y ago
        The ban on broadcasting the voices of Sinn Fein representatives (but not the content of what they said) applied to all UK media, not just the BBC. I'm in no way arguing that it was a sound decision, but it says nothing about the BBC being state run or otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%9394_British_broadcasting_voice_restrictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%9394_British_broadc...
    - retox 10y ago
icantdrive55 10y ago
I'm with you, with the exception, of, 'I think a women should have a chance a leading our country-' I used to think that way. Give them a chance. After Margret Thatcher, I changed my mind. Women are just as ruthless, egotistical, quick to war, as men. That lady ruined the "A women wouldn't act like a man." argument. I too suffer form anxiety. It really affected the quality of my life.
- mikegerwitz 10y ago
  I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'd like to ask for clarification: It sounds as though you are saying that women should not have a chance to lead the country because they are as X as men. But I'm not sure how it follows that, all things equal, men with X should be given favor over women with the same X.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    From what I understand it, parent hoped women would be better than men in government (e.g. alluding to matriarchy vs patriarchy in societies), but the women that do make it in politics in our era are the same (or even more) cutthroat and ruthless politicians as the men are. So, what you read as "all things equal, men with X should be given favor over women with the same X" is not really saying "favor men over women" but more like "don't bother voting a woman candidate if you think it will be better just because she's a woman, it will be just the same shit". Or, maybe "those women that get to play at the top of politics, are even more ruthless than men, because they have to be so to match and surpass their male competitors in a male dominating field" -- so instead of a matriarchical viewpoint, you'd get patriarchy x 2.
    - SolaceQuantum 10y ago
      Forgive me, but I don't see where "let's give a woman a go, maybe, see if it works out" is equivalent to implying women will be better Leanders than men. It seemed to be merely recognizing that there has never been a woman president and maybe, a woman can be president and not be a garbage fire.

Kenji 10y ago

And of course, I think that a woman should have a chance at leading our country, even if she's not the one that I'd chose typically. This I find the worst argument for her presidency imaginable. "I am so virtuous and anti-sexist that I prefer the female candidate for being female" It's pure sexism. You stop being sexist when you leave the gender out of the equation. Completely.

nxc18 10y ago
The trouble is that so many people use that argument while completely ignoring their own biases. E.g. "I don't care that she's a woman, but she just doesn't look presidential." "I just don't trust her, she's too shrill." "I just don't trust her, she's too quiet." Look at all the media attention to her hair, her outfits, her skin, etc and you see that she's treated fundamentally differently than a male candidate. The presidency has been held by a male exclusively for so long that voters don't know what a female president looks like. When so many (shockingly many) people vote on gut, instinct, or just their emotion, taking the time to acknowledge bias is a useful step.
- Kenji 10y ago
  Look at all the media attention to her hair I am not gonna lie, Trump's hair got much more coverage. She is not treated fundamentally different than a male candidate, except in a positive bias as in "I want to see a woman leading the country!" It is obvious that Hillary leverages gender-based tribalism to get the female vote (and the gentleman's). The argument that people are unconsciously biased is precisely such an emotionally manipulative argument to give Hillary a gender-based advantage. That does not work with people who are hardened against emotional manipulation though, like myself.
- efvxcgci 10y ago
  > Look at all the media attention to her hair, her outfits, her skin, etc Strange comment to make considering the constant articles and social media posts about Trump's hair, Trump's orange skin, and Trump's little hands, plus the widespread coverage of the naked Trump painting and naked Trump statue that were created to mock his weight and body parts.
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    Trump invites that sort of coverage by being a thin-skinned, narcissistic buffoon who thinks he's above everyone else. Case in point: The whole 'small hands' thing would've blown over if Trump had ignored it, but he couldn't help himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuSdCXmDOus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuSdCXmDOus
Dylan16807 10y ago
On the other hand, if you use conscious bias to counteract unconscious bias, that might lead you to the best decision. And it's valid to consider the externalities when you're making a political choice. The goal is a better future, after all, not maximizing fairness in the short-term. Still, it's a relatively minor factor with the way the current race has turned out. So we don't need to worry about those arguments.
- Kenji 10y ago
  The goal is a better future, after all, not maximizing fairness in the short-term. That's why you shouldn't judge by gender, but by performance of the candidate. That just proves my point. If your goal is a better future and you make performance-based decisions, you will minimize biases like sexism all by itself because what is less discriminating than assessing raw performance?
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    Before you can have an unbiased result, you need an unbiased pool of candidates. A temporary bias in the last round is an attempt to help fix the clearly-broken funnel that leads there. It might not be the best way of doing things, but the plan is not obviously wrong or anything.
    - Kenji 10y ago
      Affirmative action is destructive. You are setting up people to fail by promoting them into positions they are not fit to take. Either they are qualified or they aren't. End of discussion. It's the same way with marks. Nobody is helped if a black person with bad marks gets into a college when they should not, and they end up not being able to handle the subjects and drop out later. Not only that - affirmative action is disrespectful. Women can do as well as men. I believe in it. But that is precisely why affirmative action is obsolete. Only those who think women cannot handle the work and cannot perform on par with men favour affirmative actions based on gender. In the German language, there's already a word for women who were promoted into positions they cannot handle because there are certain quotas to fill as required by law. This is called "Quotenfrau" and is incredibly derogatory.
pessimizer 10y ago
It's rational to say that "all other things being equal, I should choose the one that I'm most likely to be unconsciously biased against." Forget racism or sexism, that's how I choose software, which movie to go see, or which pair of pants to buy.
EdHominem 10y ago
This isn't a gift to Hillary, or a matter of fairness between her and Trump. It's an evaluation of her qualities on another (largely before-unseen) metric. If pure sexism got us better presidents the sexist decision would be the right one, but as you'll see, it isn't actually sexist. Imagine yourself as a sport team leader. You've normally picked large bruiser types and you say "Hmmm, I should try a lighter person with better speed." You don't know it'll work out, and it's "unfair" to the big bruisers, but it's a rational thing for a team leader to do. Considering that left-handed players often get a benefit from simply being unique, choosing a female president could pay out now even if in the long run there's no real difference.

FreeFull 10y ago

As a non-american watching from the side-lines, I feel like this presidential election will be a loss no matter which of the candidates wins.

flueedo 10y ago
I too watch from the sidelines, but I think that if I were a voter I would either not vote or vote third candidate. I wish there wasn't so many troubling things about Hillary's deals and ties.
- anu7df 10y ago
  This is what I do not understand. If you are so troubled by Hilary, then make a stand against her. If you think Trump is worse (I do) then vote against him in a way that counts; vote for Hilary. This is not an election to sit on the sidelines. Make a choice that matters. This is not really directed at you per say, but to Americans who could vote and are expressing this "do not vote/ vote third party" sentiment. I can only guess that they are Trump supporters hoping a three way split helps them.
  - brainfire 10y ago
    "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?" "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course." "But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?" "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
  - Aaargh20318 10y ago
    > This is not an election to sit on the sidelines. Make a choice that matters. If you tell a kid that it's having green beans for dinner, it will throw a tantrum because it doesn't like green beans. If you ask it: "what do you want for dinner, green beans or spinach?", it will happily choose the beans because it likes spinach even less. The illusion of choice is a very powerful one. You get to choose from a grand total of 2 pre-vetted candidates. Do you really think it matters which one you pick ? The purpose of an election is not so the people can choose their leader, it's to make the people think they chose their leader. It prevents revolution.

throwanem 10y ago

It's an article that tries, not very subtly, to associate conservative political views with anxiety disorders. Pathologizing opinions is a tactic with a long and unlovely history (cf. "sluggish schizophrenia" under the Soviet regime) and one which I find considerably more concerning than the current electoral cycle. The republic is stronger than a corrupt apparatchik and a real estate swindler. But treating dissent as disease can get ugly fast.

retox 10y ago
What's more concerning is that this comes from the state run broadcaster. If you don't toe the party line there's something wrong with you.
- JamesMcMinn 10y ago
  The BBC is not a state run broadcaster, and the current UK government is run by the Conservative Party.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    As I gather the matter, the BBC is subject to prior restraint under law, any time the Home Secretary chooses to invoke the relevant provision, as has been done for explicitly political reasons in the recent past with the Sinn Fein ban. That's close enough to "state broadcaster" for an ignorant colonial like me.
    - jon-wood 10y ago
      The ban on broadcasting the voices of Sinn Fein representatives (but not the content of what they said) applied to all UK media, not just the BBC. I'm in no way arguing that it was a sound decision, but it says nothing about the BBC being state run or otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%9394_British_broadcasting_voice_restrictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%9394_British_broadc...
  - retox 10y ago

icantdrive55 10y ago

I'm with you, with the exception, of, 'I think a women should have a chance a leading our country-' I used to think that way. Give them a chance. After Margret Thatcher, I changed my mind. Women are just as ruthless, egotistical, quick to war, as men. That lady ruined the "A women wouldn't act like a man." argument. I too suffer form anxiety. It really affected the quality of my life.

mikegerwitz 10y ago
I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'd like to ask for clarification: It sounds as though you are saying that women should not have a chance to lead the country because they are as X as men. But I'm not sure how it follows that, all things equal, men with X should be given favor over women with the same X.
- coldtea 10y ago
  From what I understand it, parent hoped women would be better than men in government (e.g. alluding to matriarchy vs patriarchy in societies), but the women that do make it in politics in our era are the same (or even more) cutthroat and ruthless politicians as the men are. So, what you read as "all things equal, men with X should be given favor over women with the same X" is not really saying "favor men over women" but more like "don't bother voting a woman candidate if you think it will be better just because she's a woman, it will be just the same shit". Or, maybe "those women that get to play at the top of politics, are even more ruthless than men, because they have to be so to match and surpass their male competitors in a male dominating field" -- so instead of a matriarchical viewpoint, you'd get patriarchy x 2.
  - SolaceQuantum 10y ago
    Forgive me, but I don't see where "let's give a woman a go, maybe, see if it works out" is equivalent to implying women will be better Leanders than men. It seemed to be merely recognizing that there has never been a woman president and maybe, a woman can be president and not be a garbage fire.