8 ms·

> Does anyone else find this incredibly tone deaf The tone is that a racist demagogue who made up lies off the top of his head at every speech was found accept

by gdulli 10y ago

> Does anyone else find this incredibly tone deaf The tone is that a racist demagogue who made up lies off the top of his head at every speech was found acceptable by (almost) a plurality of voters. The tone is that voters have been proven to be manipulable through fear to blame people of other races and nationalities for whatever economic conditions are unfavorable to them. The tone is that the truth and nuance of these issues are now irrelevant in elections. The tone is that serial bullying and abuse of women is not a disqualifier for what should be the most-respected office in the nation. Newspaper editorial staffs are not to be shamed for being disgusted by it. But yeah, there's no more denying the extent to which that tone exists now.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
> The tone is that a racist demagogue who made up lies off the top of his head at every speech was found acceptable by (almost) a plurality of voters. The alternative was what? A corrupt rich white woman who has been involved in politics since the 1970s, who has been behind the curve of history at almost every step (saying stuff like blacks are superpredators and video games caused Columbine and not getting behind gay marriage until a couple years ago). > The tone is that voters have been proven to be manipulable through fear to blame people of other races and nationalities for whatever economic conditions are unfavorable to them. The tone is that the truth and nuance of these issues are now irrelevant in elections. This has always happened. Why is it that when poor minorities vote for their economic well-being it is seen as progress but when poor white people do it it's seen as racism? > The tone is that serial bullying and abuse of women is not a disqualifier for what should be the most-respected office in the nation. Bill Clinton. Your concerns are heard, but they'd be a lot more believable if the person who didn't get elected was not the face of hypocrisy. I didn't vote for Trump. I just don't think simplifying an election about the economy into something about race or bigotry is acceptable. It's dishonest. The working class has been gutted for years because of neoconservative and neoliberal views. Surprise - the class of people most rejected who receive poor educations and don't have a window into the modern economy have some unfavorable views on some issues.
- gdulli 10y ago
  > Why is it that when poor minorities vote for their economic well-being it is seen as progress but when poor white people do it it's seen as racism? I don't have a problem with voting for or against a trade deal based on self-interest or interest in maximizing benefit for one's country. Dehumanizing people with a different skin color who are already citizens of your country (Gonzalo Curiel, Humayun Khan) and cultivating racism and xenophobia to win power is unconscionable. > Bill Clinton I'd like to think that if he had faced election after the Monica Lewinsky incident, he would have lost.
  - aaron-lebo 10y ago
    As opposed to demonizing people for "clinging to their guns and religion" or calling people "deplorable"? It's the same thing. Both sides are engaging in this bigotry. You can't write off almost 50% of the electorate (Romney's 47% statement in 2012 and Clinton's deplorables comment) and expect anything but extremes. Both sides are doing it.
    - gdulli 10y ago
      I'm sure people didn't like being called deplorable. But they weren't called that for no reason. They weren't called that because they were simply supporting a Republican. They weren't called that for supporting Romney or McCain. Trump is a cancer of a person and supporting a man and the policies of a man who's openly transitioning our election system to one based on lies and racist demagoguery is simply, demonstrably deplorable. Relative to values like truth and tolerance that that we should share/ostensibly share. Of course it was careless of Clinton to get caught saying it, but the deplorable behavior had to exist before she had a reason to comment on it.
      - hga 10y ago
        I didn't like being called irredeemable as part of her "basket of deplorables" who "are not America". That's calling for my liquidation, a major thing from the cultural Baby Boom she belongs to. And she didn't "get caught saying it", that was part of a prepared speech, and one she only later said she "regretted" saying, not that she was wrong about it. You'll have to forgive me if my response to this is less than completely polite....
mc32 10y ago
Would you call Romney a racist (and if so, why isn't Hillary also one?) Trump got ~30% of the Hispanic vote, despite the Spanish media's immense negativity, despite the candidate's lukewarm campaigning in LatAm heavy communities. He also won more black votes than Romney and he won more white women than Hillary (a woman). It's hard to square what you are saying with what the results showed.
daxorid 10y ago
> racist demagogue I don't think you understand. The very word "racist" has lost all effect. It is not an argument. It is not a disqualifier. It is meaningless and hollow. If there is one thing the left should learn from this election, it is that screaming hollow epithets like racist, homophobic, misogynist, etc, are no longer sufficient to scare us, silence us, and cow us into submission.
- tremendo 10y ago
  Really? From my perspective those words do carry a lot of weight. And that a President of the United States, or anyone really, is ok with brandishing any and all of those tags makes me sad and really pessimistic, also determined to make those epithets count again, it's a line I will push back from.
  - hga 10y ago
    All you're telling us is that, presumably as not one of the targets who's been told they are these things for decades, perhaps all their life, "those words do carry a lot of weight". All we're telling you is that, as those who've indeed been told that for so long, those words are dead to us. And I'd add they're word salad to the other side when used generically in a political campaign, with about as much semantic meaningless as Blue or Green in pre-Nika riot Constantinople. Shades of Bill Maher saying, sorry about crying wolf over our telling you the Current Year Republican presidential candidate was Literally Hitler (although he should have gone all the way back to the first example in 1948), this time we really mean it. Circling back to your desire to re-imbue meaning to them, I don't think you'll see that in your lifetime. See, for example, the hundred year cycle of progressive -> liberal -> getting back to but not quite there yet progressive. When words and the concepts behind them get burned like this, it's really hard to recover. And, yeah, it's much worse than the surface which we've mostly been discussing this at, the very concepts have been rendered stone cold dead.
    - tremendo 10y ago
      It might be my not being American, also not on the left, but what I am reading (perhaps erroneously) is: yes, "we" (you and GP) have been called racist, homophobic, misogynist, etc. for so long …and from being called those words there's no introspection as to whether one is perhaps factually so disrespectful of the basic dignity of other human beings that it would be decent to reconsider? Maybe it will indeed be really hard to recover. Then again, my determination just got reinforced.

by gdulli 10y ago

aaron-lebo 10y ago

> The tone is that a racist demagogue who made up lies off the top of his head at every speech was found acceptable by (almost) a plurality of voters. The alternative was what? A corrupt rich white woman who has been involved in politics since the 1970s, who has been behind the curve of history at almost every step (saying stuff like blacks are superpredators and video games caused Columbine and not getting behind gay marriage until a couple years ago). > The tone is that voters have been proven to be manipulable through fear to blame people of other races and nationalities for whatever economic conditions are unfavorable to them. The tone is that the truth and nuance of these issues are now irrelevant in elections. This has always happened. Why is it that when poor minorities vote for their economic well-being it is seen as progress but when poor white people do it it's seen as racism? > The tone is that serial bullying and abuse of women is not a disqualifier for what should be the most-respected office in the nation. Bill Clinton. Your concerns are heard, but they'd be a lot more believable if the person who didn't get elected was not the face of hypocrisy. I didn't vote for Trump. I just don't think simplifying an election about the economy into something about race or bigotry is acceptable. It's dishonest. The working class has been gutted for years because of neoconservative and neoliberal views. Surprise - the class of people most rejected who receive poor educations and don't have a window into the modern economy have some unfavorable views on some issues.

gdulli 10y ago
> Why is it that when poor minorities vote for their economic well-being it is seen as progress but when poor white people do it it's seen as racism? I don't have a problem with voting for or against a trade deal based on self-interest or interest in maximizing benefit for one's country. Dehumanizing people with a different skin color who are already citizens of your country (Gonzalo Curiel, Humayun Khan) and cultivating racism and xenophobia to win power is unconscionable. > Bill Clinton I'd like to think that if he had faced election after the Monica Lewinsky incident, he would have lost.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  As opposed to demonizing people for "clinging to their guns and religion" or calling people "deplorable"? It's the same thing. Both sides are engaging in this bigotry. You can't write off almost 50% of the electorate (Romney's 47% statement in 2012 and Clinton's deplorables comment) and expect anything but extremes. Both sides are doing it.
  - gdulli 10y ago
    I'm sure people didn't like being called deplorable. But they weren't called that for no reason. They weren't called that because they were simply supporting a Republican. They weren't called that for supporting Romney or McCain. Trump is a cancer of a person and supporting a man and the policies of a man who's openly transitioning our election system to one based on lies and racist demagoguery is simply, demonstrably deplorable. Relative to values like truth and tolerance that that we should share/ostensibly share. Of course it was careless of Clinton to get caught saying it, but the deplorable behavior had to exist before she had a reason to comment on it.
    - hga 10y ago
      I didn't like being called irredeemable as part of her "basket of deplorables" who "are not America". That's calling for my liquidation, a major thing from the cultural Baby Boom she belongs to. And she didn't "get caught saying it", that was part of a prepared speech, and one she only later said she "regretted" saying, not that she was wrong about it. You'll have to forgive me if my response to this is less than completely polite....

mc32 10y ago

Would you call Romney a racist (and if so, why isn't Hillary also one?) Trump got ~30% of the Hispanic vote, despite the Spanish media's immense negativity, despite the candidate's lukewarm campaigning in LatAm heavy communities. He also won more black votes than Romney and he won more white women than Hillary (a woman). It's hard to square what you are saying with what the results showed.

daxorid 10y ago

> racist demagogue I don't think you understand. The very word "racist" has lost all effect. It is not an argument. It is not a disqualifier. It is meaningless and hollow. If there is one thing the left should learn from this election, it is that screaming hollow epithets like racist, homophobic, misogynist, etc, are no longer sufficient to scare us, silence us, and cow us into submission.

tremendo 10y ago
Really? From my perspective those words do carry a lot of weight. And that a President of the United States, or anyone really, is ok with brandishing any and all of those tags makes me sad and really pessimistic, also determined to make those epithets count again, it's a line I will push back from.
- hga 10y ago
  All you're telling us is that, presumably as not one of the targets who's been told they are these things for decades, perhaps all their life, "those words do carry a lot of weight". All we're telling you is that, as those who've indeed been told that for so long, those words are dead to us. And I'd add they're word salad to the other side when used generically in a political campaign, with about as much semantic meaningless as Blue or Green in pre-Nika riot Constantinople. Shades of Bill Maher saying, sorry about crying wolf over our telling you the Current Year Republican presidential candidate was Literally Hitler (although he should have gone all the way back to the first example in 1948), this time we really mean it. Circling back to your desire to re-imbue meaning to them, I don't think you'll see that in your lifetime. See, for example, the hundred year cycle of progressive -> liberal -> getting back to but not quite there yet progressive. When words and the concepts behind them get burned like this, it's really hard to recover. And, yeah, it's much worse than the surface which we've mostly been discussing this at, the very concepts have been rendered stone cold dead.
  - tremendo 10y ago
    It might be my not being American, also not on the left, but what I am reading (perhaps erroneously) is: yes, "we" (you and GP) have been called racist, homophobic, misogynist, etc. for so long …and from being called those words there's no introspection as to whether one is perhaps factually so disrespectful of the basic dignity of other human beings that it would be decent to reconsider? Maybe it will indeed be really hard to recover. Then again, my determination just got reinforced.