35 ms·

A huge issue today is the lack of calm, reasoned debate. As a Trump supporter I have never been able to properly explain the rationale to a liberal. I believe

A huge issue today is the lack of calm, reasoned debate. As a Trump supporter I have never been able to properly explain the rationale to a liberal. I believe there is a worthy debate beneath all the political smear, but it is never reached. I believe the reason for this is the liberal media and the incredibly effective Democratic party election machine. The argument stays at the high level of "how could you vote for someone who said that", "he is a monster", etc. It is "I don't want to listen". All you have to do to realise what is wrong with this is to ask yourself: "What happens if the situation is reversed and someone said they don't want to listen to me?". What if someone else started to restrict what I could say? Thankfully, freedom of speech is such an integral part of the US, that there is not one side trying to control what the other can say, and the other doing the same back. This is what makes the country work. The fact that both sides are not in the business of restricting free speech. This doesn't hold true in many other countries.

rootlocus 10y ago
> Thankfully, freedom of speech is such an integral part of the US, that there is not one side trying to control what the other can say, and the other doing the same back. Sure, you and Donald Trump can say whatever you please. Nobody's restricting your freedom of speech. However, what you say betrays who you are. And what Trump said showed he's a liar, misogynist, tech illiterate, arrogant and overall a disgusting human being. > "What happens if the situation is reversed and someone said they don't want to listen to me?" People listen up until the point you prove to them you're not worth listening to.
- tdkl 10y ago
  > People listen up until the point you prove to them you're not worth listening to. And they decide that based on emotions, which marks them as not being capable of rational discussions.
  - masondixon 10y ago
    After losing control of the entire government, there is still this sense of: "I don't need to engage in debate with you". Its just not rationale.
    - tdkl 10y ago
      People should ask themselves deeply why this happened and start researching. Because that would be a rational response, not "protesting" with destroying property.
      - mch82 10y ago
        100% agree with this. Specifically, I'm trying to do three things right now... 1. Investigate "why" 2. Avoid partisan statements 3. Ask myself, if it were Obama instead of Trump would I feel the same way. And if the answer is no, I keep searching for the right message.
    - mch82 10y ago
      The main lesson learned from Trump's campaign is that "rational" is far less important than "belief" and "story". Here's what seems irrational from my perspective: 1. Bob votes to elect Mike Pence, who takes the position "Homosexuality is incompatible with military service" [mikepence.com] 2. Dan, who is homosexual and in the military and Facebook friends with Bob since they started hanging out in college, finds out Bob voted for Mike Pence. 3. Dan says to Bob, "Yo man, that's pretty bigoted of you to vote for that guy." 4. Bob says I'm not a bigot. 5. Bob doesn't empathize with Dan or understand that Dan is really just pissed Bob took away his ability to serve the country in the military by electing Mike Pence. [mikepence.com]: https://web.archive.org/web/20020206052612/http://www.mikepence.com/issues.html https://web.archive.org/web/20020206052612/http://www.mikepe...
      - Prefinem 10y ago
        6. Dan doesn't understand or empathize with Bob that while Bob may or may not approve just one aspect of a politician but that believes Pence is better than 'x' and thus is also a bigot.
  - tkxxx7 10y ago
    That could easily be a rational decision.
    - return0 10y ago
      > And they decide that based on emotions No it could not. What you just said defies reason.
      - tkxxx7 10y ago
        I am saying what you just quoted is not always the case. To say "and they decide that based on emotions" is entirely unfounded. Plenty of people do, sure, but plenty do not. As an aside, I should note that weighing ones' emotions in a decision is not an inherently irrational process.
        return0 10y ago
        ok understood
- masondixon 10y ago
  > The argument stays at the high level of "how could you vote for someone who said that", "he is a monster", etc. It is "I don't want to listen". >> And what Trump said showed he's a liar, misogynist, tech illiterate, arrogant and overall a disgusting human being. And Clinton is not a liar, not a tech illiterate, not arrogant, and not disgusting human being? On misogyny - she has never attacked a woman's character before? Bias, bias, bias, and bias. > People listen up until the point you prove to them you're not worth listening to. Do you believe you are rationale. Everyone is saying that you lost the election because you didn't listen. This has real consequences. ACA will be repealed. Etc. Etc. And you still have the attitude of: "I don't want to listen". All I can say is thank you - because now it doesn't matter anymore.
  - joshvm 10y ago
    You can argue that a lot of people (Democrats included) didn't want to vote for Clinton either. By that argument you're justifying both candidates' character flaws by saying "Well, you know the other person is just as bad as my choice, so that makes it OK".
    - shawabawa3 10y ago
      > "Well, you know the other person is just as bad as my choice, so that makes it OK" That is perfectly logical in a 2 (effectively) candidate election
    - masondixon 10y ago
      I wasn't agreeing with the claims against Trump. I think they are wrong. I was commenting on the fact that you can find arguments for all those claims for Clinton. Which cancels out the argument - and requires each claim to be taken by itself without supporting evidence and reasoned arguments. The libs got to use to not having to back up their claims through a confirmation bias from their echo chamber.
      - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        Except they're a classic smokescreen - every time one is refuted (and they all are, through expensive pointless investigation) another is invented to fill airtime.
- return0 10y ago
  > he's a liar, No doubt. ALL politicians are to some extent. > misogynist, because? Misogyny is literally HATRED of women, like, treating them really harsh. I dont think the democrats were convincing at that > tech illiterate, He seems to be handling twitter quite great > arrogant No doubt about that but sociopathy is a frequent characteristic of leaders > and overall a disgusting human being Disgust is visceral aversion, and can be very personal. Not an argument Are you willing to negotiate any of your positions or are they set in stone? It seems the liberals went full hard-line mode, and ignored half of america. > People listen up until the point you prove to them you're not worth listening to. So basically , what the others say is garbage, deplorables, end of conversation. That's the point, swjs broke off the conversation with "you know what i m not arguing with you, you re a deplorable". Thats not how you convince people, you have to try harder. disclosure: i m not american but watched the war of words from afar.
  - rootlocus 10y ago
    > Misogyny is literally HATRED of women No, it's not. I won't quote dictionaries, you can look it up on wikipedia. You can also find compilations of all the offensive remarks he made regarding women. > ALL politicians are to some extent. True. Indeed, we're all liars. However, Trump seems to disregard the truth when it stands right next to him. Even in the face of irrefutable proof he doesn't back down. That's worse than lying. > He seems to be handling twitter quite great I wouldn't call handling twitter tech literacy, but he's taking an aggressive stance against Apple's privacy policy for example. > Disgust is visceral aversion, and can be very personal. Not an argument I kindly disagree. At some point so much garbage is piled up you can't help but sum it up in a very personal way: disgusting. Also, as a human being I can't help but have feelings. And I would argue they're a rational response to everything I witnessed this election.
    - return0 10y ago
      > No, it's not. I won't quote dictionaries, you can look it up on wikipedia. You bring up an interesting point. The definition of "Misogyny" in wikipedia in 2004: Misogyny is an exaggerated pathological aversion towards women. became in 2016: Misogyny is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. I can't help but see the broadening of the definition throughout the years. It happens a lot with words ending in '-phobia' as well. Food for thought. For the record the word miso-gyny etymologically means "hatred of women"
- gedrap 10y ago
  Sorry but your comment simply indicates the problem. It's quite similar to the post-Brexit discussions, how pro-Bexit people are stupid, etc. We can talk about what a "liar, misogynist, tech illiterate, arrogant and overall a disgusting human being" he is all we want. It would probably be fine, as in it wouldn't really matter, if he was some random radical weirdo with an audience of a dozen equally weird folks. But he's the President-elect. So we can continue with this circle jerk rant about what a disgusting human being is and what his voters are like. Or we can try to actually understand why so many people voted for him. But in order to do that, we need to stop the whole rant that never changes. I am not pro-Trump. In fact, my safety largely depends on NATO and Trump poses a threat. But there's no point in shouting about what a misogynist he is. It's so counterproductive.
  - asdfasdfa11112 10y ago
    I also think the shouting of "liar, misogynist, ..." -- that type of reaction by people, to call others names -- is a component of what led people to vote for Trump.
    - rootlocus 10y ago
      So you think it's ok to say everything Trump said during his campaign, and NOT be called out for it because... it's wrong to call people names?
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        Call him out, but keep listening. Those names are used to justify shutting down the discussion.
        masondixon 10y ago
        Great point. Racist and misogynist are very heavy terms, and once they are in the mix, there is no way a moderate is going to go near the discussion. It is like "you are racist, racists shouldn't be listened to, I will not listen to you". There have been so many comments like this in this thread - even when the original comment is pointing this out. Sigh. Its so great to learn something I did not think of during a discussion like this. Its exactly what its for.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > Sure, you and Donald Trump can say whatever you please. Nobody's restricting your freedom of speech. As opposed to who?
  - rootlocus 10y ago
    As opposed to nobody. Everyone can say whatever they please. I was just giving examples: "you and Donald Trump".
    - masondixon 10y ago
      Yes everyone can say what they please. But if you are in any kind of liberal circle, it is social suicide to support anything Trump says. And this is what creates the echo chamber. Which prevents you from hearing the silent majority who decided this election.
eachro 10y ago
My issue with Trump has never really been about his politics. I get that immigration and loss of manufacturing jobs due to globalization are serious concerns for a large swath of the American population. What I don't understand is how anyone could feel comfortable with him as commander in chief, or as the US's representative in the international community. Perhaps that's not what most people are concerned about, but foreign affairs is probably the area where the POTUS has the most impact. The election could have and should have been his in an absolute popular vote landslide, but that didn't happen because he kept blundering into so many unforced errors during his campaign - errors that anyone with a modicum of self restraint would have avoided.
- masondixon 10y ago
  > how anyone could feel comfortable with him as commander in chief I understand what you are saying here. He struggles to speak eloquently, and does not have a statesman-like persona. He is no traditional president. But look at the last 15 years of foreign policy from "statesmen". We had two wars, Obama missed seeing the rise of ISIS, Syria is a humanitarian nightmare, we had a huge financial crash, and terrorism is on the rise. Trump opposed the war (was not a strong supporter before, and immediately after was certainly opposed to it). No one likes him and he doesn't owe favours to anyone. The bankers, the lobbyists, the establishment. Everything that we would agree is wrong with the country. And he did not run on a conservative platform of religion - which has nudged the entire Republican party to the left. And he use to be a Democrat. There will never be another candidate like him. But sadly no one can look past the ad-hominem character attacks.
  - prairiedogg 10y ago
    Hi masondixon! > But look at the last 15 years of foreign policy from "statesmen". We had two wars, Obama missed seeing the rise of ISIS, Syria is a humanitarian nightmare, we had a huge financial crash, and terrorism is on the rise. So is your argument that "statesmen" have failed to avoid crisis, therefore someone who is not a "statesman" will be able to better avoid crisis? Would it be fair then to say that because doctors have failed to cure patients, that we should stop having doctors treat the sick? Or that because people with drivers licenses have crashed cars, that we should allow people without them to drive cars?
cyphax 10y ago
> Thankfully, freedom of speech is such an integral part of the US, that there is not one side trying to control what the other can say, and the other doing the same back. Let's hope _other_ people's freedoms aren't being taken away thanks to your vote, though. I also don't see why you would Trump will actually listen to you. Because he says so? You trust what he says? I understand and will not debate that you feel like you haven't been heard by the American political system (I immediately take your word for it), but that just doesn't mean the alternative to staying on the same path isn't significantly worse. Or do you think your life couldn't be any worse? Worse is _also_ an alternative you may have voted for.
- masondixon 10y ago
  > Let's hope _other_ people's freedoms aren't being taken away thanks to your vote, though. Such as? > I also don't see why you would Trump will actually listen to you. Because he says so? You trust what he says? I'm not talking about Trump listening. I'm talking about liberals listening to trump supporters trying to explain to them why they lost, and why they feel they are taking away freedom of speech. > I understand and will not debate that you feel like you haven't been heard by the American political system (I immediately take your word for it), but that just doesn't mean the alternative to staying on the same path isn't significantly worse. Or do you think your life couldn't be any worse? Worse is _also_ an alternative you may have voted for. The past 15 years have been a disaster. War, humanitarian crises, terrorism. I mean its always been a cruisy life for a white male software engineer though. But I just can't stand irrationality (as I perceive it), but more than anything the biggest risk is the attacks on freedom of speech through the liberal's bullying, public shaming, and ad-hominem attacks.
  - cyphax 10y ago
    > Such as? Well, I'm thinking mostly same sex marriage, maybe the freedom of religion (which seems to be OK for most, unless you're a muslim). Trump promises a conservative SCOTUS nomination, so everything that comes out of that as a side effect has a risk of people's rights being take away, mostly the progress made under the Obama administration > I'm not talking about Trump listening. I'm talking about liberals listening to trump supporters trying to explain to them why they lost, and why they feel they are taking away freedom of speech. OK screw people who want to take away your freedom of speech (but I admit that I don't know exactly what the problem you mention is, because I don't live in the US) but the point still stands as far as I'm concerned: I understand that you're pissed off, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to abuse the presidential elections, unless (of course you really agree with Trump's ideas, in which case I understand a vote for the man), obviously. I seriously doubt it'll lead to any improvement for this group of people, which would certainly make me wonder what the _next_ elections would look like. >The past 15 years have been a disaster. War, humanitarian crises, terrorism. I'm confused. There's a large group of white males that feel left behind, and that's because of war, humanitarian crises and terrorism? Not things like a very high unemployment rate (it's <5%, doesn't seem very high?) And if it's about war, humanitarian crises and terrorisme, you vote _Trump_, who has the tendency to throw oil on the fire, to fix that? How is this outcome REALLY going to make your life better? Do you honestly believe it will, and if so, how? I mean, I hate irrationality as much as you do, but I'm still trying to understand the issue, and why exactly it's all Clinton's fault and how Trump is going to help? (I mean, a possibly rich businessman is not really part of the angry group so I don't see how it makes sense that Trump would represent a group he treats poorly)
robinwarren 10y ago
Why not have a go here, I'd be interested to hear your rationale. On a less important note, re the argument being at a level of "how could you vote for someone who said that". That may not be people refusing to engage with what you see as the important points, but them focusing on what they see as the most important points. That doesn't make it right but if it is the case you may do well to understand their point of view holds that someone with his behaviour and character can't be trusted with power, they may see everything else as somewhat irrelevant. If that is the case at least understanding it may help you frame the discussion with such people, and hopefully not dismiss their arguments as petty since they think they are the most important points. Anyway, aside complete. Let's hear the rationale for being a Trump supporter, I would be genuinely interested to hear it even if I may ultimately disagree.
- masondixon 10y ago
  > they may see everything else as somewhat irrelevant Yep. But this is what made everyone miss what was happening. It was an emotional response. But in this case Clinton provided so many analogous examples, which were ignored, which is just plain bias. As bad as someone is you always have to ask: could the same be said as my candidate? And with Hillary is was a yes on everything. It was always a question of "How could there be so many racists, sexists and xenophobes?". The answer was...there is not. It was the wrong question. > Anyway, aside complete. Let's hear the rationale for being a Trump supporter, I would be genuinely interested to hear it even if I may ultimately disagree. I've already posted it in a reply to this comment somewhere. Mainly corruption - the ultimate poison of a democracy. Counter productive political correctness, money out of politics, bullying and irrational feminists, sjws, and blm supporters. If you don't agree with everything they say you are sexist, racist, misogynist.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
    > Yep. But this is what made everyone miss what was happening. What is it that you think was happening?
    - 10y ago
thenomad 10y ago
Would you be willing to articulate your argument for Trump here? I promise not to argue against you, and certainly not to slur you. Can't speak for anyone else, though. We now HAVE Trump coming in as US president, so frankly I'd welcome a bit of hope that he might be good. I can't promise to agree with you, but I'm very willing to listen to arguments from those who hold opposing positions to mine.
- masondixon 10y ago
  > I promise not to argue against you, and certainly not to slur you. Please argue! And thank you for not slurring :) > Would you be willing to articulate your argument for Trump here? I supported Obama. I always considered myself a liberal. I support gay marriage, I support gun control. I support universal health care. I support decent welfare and a safety net. As a programmer, the formative moment for my Trump support came when a prolific open-source developer was forced to leave the community because he would not accept a trivial change to the documentation to change gendered pro-nouns to non-gendered pro-nouns. His reason was he didn't want to mess up the revision history with a trivial change like that. And he was from South America where nouns are all gendered anyway. But one of the big companies came out and said that "they would have fired him". http://www.dailydot.com/news/github-gendered-pronoun-debate/ http://www.dailydot.com/news/github-gendered-pronoun-debate/ This was non-sensical to me, and was bullying. But I soon realised that this overly sensitive behaviour had pervaded all walks of life and all aspects of society and I soon discovered the cliched political correctness run wild with third-wave feminist bloggers, social justice, Black Lives Matter protesting of clearly non-racially motivated attacks, and that was it. Its ironic that my biggest reason for voting Trump is to stop the bullying from the left - who are protesting against...bullying (sexism, misogyny, racism). One side is for freedom of speech, the other side is for controlling what you can say. One side thinks controlling what you can say will be abused and unfairly target people, the other side thinks that freedom of speech is a means of control by the entitled. There's a calm, complex, and nuanced debate to be had here to find a middle ground. But unfortunately there is no Liberal ready to accept that this is the debate that needs to be had. The alt-right, the new right, the Trump supporters - we are ready and waiting to have this debate...
chippy 10y ago
I'm curious: > I have never been able to properly explain the rationale to a liberal Have you ever had explained the liberal rationale to you and did you understand it? I'm wondering if it works one way, or everyone struggles to understand the other. Thanks.
- masondixon 10y ago
  > Have you ever had explained the liberal rationale to you and did you understand it? My Medium daily update newsletter is full of feminist, progressive, black lives matter articles. I read all of them. I read all the comments on Reddit, and on HN. Everything is labelled as racism and misogynistic and full of vitriol. There is no priority on sound and valid argument. Its all about feelings. Maybe I live in a filter bubble, but I would love to find a good example of a liberal having a rationale debate with a Trump supporter about political correctness, black lives matter, etc, that doesn't revolve around something being inherently "racist" or simply ad-hominem attacks. I cannot find anything like this.
  - Fraterkes 10y ago
    I'm probably more on the "SJW" side of things than a lot of people, what questions do you have?
    - masondixon 10y ago
      Do you think the response by Joyent was appropriate: http://www.dailydot.com/news/github-gendered-pronoun-debate/ http://www.dailydot.com/news/github-gendered-pronoun-debate/ Do you think this was appropriate and fair to the accused: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattress_Performance_(Carry_That_Weight) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattress_Performance_(Carry_Th... Do you think the BLM riots were justified over this: http://nyti.ms/2ctkwYZ http://nyti.ms/2ctkwYZ Do you think police shoot more black people than white people? Do you think SJWs consider the potential side effects of their approach? E.g: - Establishing diversity quotas causing resentment amongst others that "they were only hired because of diversity" even if they made it there on their own without a quota or special treatment? - Making women, and minorities feel like the system is always against them and they will not succeed so they should not try.
JohnStrange 10y ago
As a Trump supporter, you should first and foremost brush up on your knowledge what the terms "liberal" and "liberalism" actually mean.
return0 10y ago
Wise decision to create a new account for this comment! I have the same problem trying to explain to my european friends why trump won and why it is not all crazy.
- masondixon 10y ago
  ;)
- Chris2048 10y ago
  I'm European, and British. I voted Brexit. I understand. If the rust/bible belters feel the same as Northern England, I fully understand.
someguydave 10y ago
>Thankfully, freedom of speech is such an integral part of the US, that there is not one side trying to control what the other can say, and the other doing the same back. That is exactly what the recent HN front page articles proposing that Facebook 'stop misinformation' are aiming to accomplish.
user837387 10y ago
You are lying to yourself. I think that you don't even realize that you are doing it it. I guess this explains how somebody can vote for Trump. And if Trump screws up the country you will again lie to yourself as to why you are not responsible. Why your vote for Trump did not matter. And then you will blame everybody else.
- masondixon 10y ago
  And if he doesn't?
  - user837387 10y ago
    If he doesn't leave the country worse off then what it is right now then I'll admit that I was wrong in thinking that he would screw up this country. If he actually makes it better then I'll admit that he was a good choice. The country by the way is in pretty good condition right now. People have easily forgotten 2008. I really hope we do not need to do another clean up in 2020. Will you accept you screw up if he screws up the country? By the way, I think you are trying to gaslight us by using half truths. The same half truths you've used to convince yourself that Trump is good for the country.
    - masondixon 10y ago
      > By the way, I think you are trying to gaslight us by using half truths. The same half truths you've used to convince yourself that Trump is good for the country. I value rationale debate above all else. The ability to debate ideas is being silenced extremely effectively by the progressives and it will continue. For me, I prioritise this freedom of speech and ability to debate the issues with opposing viewpoints above all else. This is my true goal. This election revealed the true liberal media bias with their self-admitted inability to realise what was happening around them. > Will you accept you screw up if he screws up the country? Yep. > If he doesn't leave the country worse off then what it is right now then I'll admit that I was wrong in thinking that he would screw up this country. If he actually makes it better then I'll admit that he was a good choice. Okay!
    - 10y ago
mtw 10y ago
So how can you explain the rationale?
- masondixon 10y ago
  Its in this thread somewhere.
jmde 10y ago
So, I'll try to respond as someone who voted in support of Johnson, and can get the appeal of Trump as well as the Clinton, as well as visceral hatred of either. I get that huge swaths of the electorate feel like this system hasn't been working, and that' it's all manipulated by career political insiders who have their own brand of benevolent authoritarianism. I get the distrust of a liberal culture that overvalues its own contributions to society, and has a false sense of how correct they are and why they are where they are, and overlooks their own serious problems and prejudices. I understand how the media plays into this, and believe that a lot of what Trump has said has been taken too seriously or distorted, that he was projecting a character rather than an argument, and in doing so, demonstrated empathy with a huge group of the population. I get that population has been so screwed by the current system they just want something different, whether that be Sanders or Trump. However, I strongly believe that there's a false equivalence in these discussions, and that calls for "reasoned debate" on the American right are often intentionally or unintentionally meant as a negotiating tactic, to cover up arrogant intransigence on their part. They don't get what they want, so rather than contributing something constructive, they accuse the left of "not having a reasoned discussion" or not "compromising." When the GOP and Trump talk about the left "not compromising," they're really meaning "we're not getting what we want." Relatedly, do you really believe that the things that Trump has said about minorities, women, and so forth are acceptable ways of leading the United States, or treating those who disagreed with you? What would the GOP do if the liberal candidate said the same things about Trump? Which party shut down congress repeatedly rather than have a reasoned discussion? Which party has been obstructing and crippling the supreme court because they didn't get their way? The reality is that the GOP lost this election in terms of votes, and yet are still entering the white house because of a broken electoral voting system. Like it or not, Clinton won more votes than Trump. So Trump and the GOP are going to undo everything the majority voted for to get their selfish agenda, because they don't care about the majority of the electorate that voted for someone else. Who is being unreasonable in this situation? It's not the liberal party. I have plenty of reasons to be angry with both parties, but Trump is dangerous in a way that Clinton was not. Sure, I could find some bright sides to his ticket, but it's overshadowed by a lot to be terrified by.
- masondixon 10y ago
davesque 10y ago
Sorry, but this notion that Trump supporters are being unfairly criticized is a complete straw man. Vigorous criticism is what we should all expect for someone who fans the flames of mistrust and xenophobia in order to accomplish their goals. There are certain lines you just don't cross. You don't imply that 20-25% of the world population (Muslims) is unfit to enter the country. You don't peddle conspiracy theories. You don't mock disabled people. You don't brag that you can do whatever you want to women just because you're famous. You don't do even one of these things, but he did all of them and more. Trump supporters need to own up to all of this instead of whining about being called out for it. You also shouldn't expect us to take you at all seriously if you comment with a throwaway account named after the Mason-Dixon line which, at one point in history, separated territories where slavery was either legal or not legal. Don't evoke civil war symbolism and slavery and simultaneously expect to have a calm, reasoned debate.

rootlocus 10y ago

> Thankfully, freedom of speech is such an integral part of the US, that there is not one side trying to control what the other can say, and the other doing the same back. Sure, you and Donald Trump can say whatever you please. Nobody's restricting your freedom of speech. However, what you say betrays who you are. And what Trump said showed he's a liar, misogynist, tech illiterate, arrogant and overall a disgusting human being. > "What happens if the situation is reversed and someone said they don't want to listen to me?" People listen up until the point you prove to them you're not worth listening to.

tdkl 10y ago
> People listen up until the point you prove to them you're not worth listening to. And they decide that based on emotions, which marks them as not being capable of rational discussions.
- masondixon 10y ago
  After losing control of the entire government, there is still this sense of: "I don't need to engage in debate with you". Its just not rationale.
  - tdkl 10y ago
    People should ask themselves deeply why this happened and start researching. Because that would be a rational response, not "protesting" with destroying property.
    - mch82 10y ago
      100% agree with this. Specifically, I'm trying to do three things right now... 1. Investigate "why" 2. Avoid partisan statements 3. Ask myself, if it were Obama instead of Trump would I feel the same way. And if the answer is no, I keep searching for the right message.
  - mch82 10y ago
    The main lesson learned from Trump's campaign is that "rational" is far less important than "belief" and "story". Here's what seems irrational from my perspective: 1. Bob votes to elect Mike Pence, who takes the position "Homosexuality is incompatible with military service" [mikepence.com] 2. Dan, who is homosexual and in the military and Facebook friends with Bob since they started hanging out in college, finds out Bob voted for Mike Pence. 3. Dan says to Bob, "Yo man, that's pretty bigoted of you to vote for that guy." 4. Bob says I'm not a bigot. 5. Bob doesn't empathize with Dan or understand that Dan is really just pissed Bob took away his ability to serve the country in the military by electing Mike Pence. [mikepence.com]: https://web.archive.org/web/20020206052612/http://www.mikepence.com/issues.html https://web.archive.org/web/20020206052612/http://www.mikepe...
    - Prefinem 10y ago
      6. Dan doesn't understand or empathize with Bob that while Bob may or may not approve just one aspect of a politician but that believes Pence is better than 'x' and thus is also a bigot.
- tkxxx7 10y ago
  That could easily be a rational decision.
  - return0 10y ago
    > And they decide that based on emotions No it could not. What you just said defies reason.
    - tkxxx7 10y ago
      I am saying what you just quoted is not always the case. To say "and they decide that based on emotions" is entirely unfounded. Plenty of people do, sure, but plenty do not. As an aside, I should note that weighing ones' emotions in a decision is not an inherently irrational process.
      - return0 10y ago
        ok understood
masondixon 10y ago
> The argument stays at the high level of "how could you vote for someone who said that", "he is a monster", etc. It is "I don't want to listen". >> And what Trump said showed he's a liar, misogynist, tech illiterate, arrogant and overall a disgusting human being. And Clinton is not a liar, not a tech illiterate, not arrogant, and not disgusting human being? On misogyny - she has never attacked a woman's character before? Bias, bias, bias, and bias. > People listen up until the point you prove to them you're not worth listening to. Do you believe you are rationale. Everyone is saying that you lost the election because you didn't listen. This has real consequences. ACA will be repealed. Etc. Etc. And you still have the attitude of: "I don't want to listen". All I can say is thank you - because now it doesn't matter anymore.
- joshvm 10y ago
  You can argue that a lot of people (Democrats included) didn't want to vote for Clinton either. By that argument you're justifying both candidates' character flaws by saying "Well, you know the other person is just as bad as my choice, so that makes it OK".
  - shawabawa3 10y ago
    > "Well, you know the other person is just as bad as my choice, so that makes it OK" That is perfectly logical in a 2 (effectively) candidate election
  - masondixon 10y ago
    I wasn't agreeing with the claims against Trump. I think they are wrong. I was commenting on the fact that you can find arguments for all those claims for Clinton. Which cancels out the argument - and requires each claim to be taken by itself without supporting evidence and reasoned arguments. The libs got to use to not having to back up their claims through a confirmation bias from their echo chamber.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Except they're a classic smokescreen - every time one is refuted (and they all are, through expensive pointless investigation) another is invented to fill airtime.
return0 10y ago
> he's a liar, No doubt. ALL politicians are to some extent. > misogynist, because? Misogyny is literally HATRED of women, like, treating them really harsh. I dont think the democrats were convincing at that > tech illiterate, He seems to be handling twitter quite great > arrogant No doubt about that but sociopathy is a frequent characteristic of leaders > and overall a disgusting human being Disgust is visceral aversion, and can be very personal. Not an argument Are you willing to negotiate any of your positions or are they set in stone? It seems the liberals went full hard-line mode, and ignored half of america. > People listen up until the point you prove to them you're not worth listening to. So basically , what the others say is garbage, deplorables, end of conversation. That's the point, swjs broke off the conversation with "you know what i m not arguing with you, you re a deplorable". Thats not how you convince people, you have to try harder. disclosure: i m not american but watched the war of words from afar.
- rootlocus 10y ago
  > Misogyny is literally HATRED of women No, it's not. I won't quote dictionaries, you can look it up on wikipedia. You can also find compilations of all the offensive remarks he made regarding women. > ALL politicians are to some extent. True. Indeed, we're all liars. However, Trump seems to disregard the truth when it stands right next to him. Even in the face of irrefutable proof he doesn't back down. That's worse than lying. > He seems to be handling twitter quite great I wouldn't call handling twitter tech literacy, but he's taking an aggressive stance against Apple's privacy policy for example. > Disgust is visceral aversion, and can be very personal. Not an argument I kindly disagree. At some point so much garbage is piled up you can't help but sum it up in a very personal way: disgusting. Also, as a human being I can't help but have feelings. And I would argue they're a rational response to everything I witnessed this election.
  - return0 10y ago
    > No, it's not. I won't quote dictionaries, you can look it up on wikipedia. You bring up an interesting point. The definition of "Misogyny" in wikipedia in 2004: Misogyny is an exaggerated pathological aversion towards women. became in 2016: Misogyny is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. I can't help but see the broadening of the definition throughout the years. It happens a lot with words ending in '-phobia' as well. Food for thought. For the record the word miso-gyny etymologically means "hatred of women"
gedrap 10y ago
Sorry but your comment simply indicates the problem. It's quite similar to the post-Brexit discussions, how pro-Bexit people are stupid, etc. We can talk about what a "liar, misogynist, tech illiterate, arrogant and overall a disgusting human being" he is all we want. It would probably be fine, as in it wouldn't really matter, if he was some random radical weirdo with an audience of a dozen equally weird folks. But he's the President-elect. So we can continue with this circle jerk rant about what a disgusting human being is and what his voters are like. Or we can try to actually understand why so many people voted for him. But in order to do that, we need to stop the whole rant that never changes. I am not pro-Trump. In fact, my safety largely depends on NATO and Trump poses a threat. But there's no point in shouting about what a misogynist he is. It's so counterproductive.
- asdfasdfa11112 10y ago
  I also think the shouting of "liar, misogynist, ..." -- that type of reaction by people, to call others names -- is a component of what led people to vote for Trump.
  - rootlocus 10y ago
    So you think it's ok to say everything Trump said during his campaign, and NOT be called out for it because... it's wrong to call people names?
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      Call him out, but keep listening. Those names are used to justify shutting down the discussion.
      - masondixon 10y ago
        Great point. Racist and misogynist are very heavy terms, and once they are in the mix, there is no way a moderate is going to go near the discussion. It is like "you are racist, racists shouldn't be listened to, I will not listen to you". There have been so many comments like this in this thread - even when the original comment is pointing this out. Sigh. Its so great to learn something I did not think of during a discussion like this. Its exactly what its for.
Chris2048 10y ago
> Sure, you and Donald Trump can say whatever you please. Nobody's restricting your freedom of speech. As opposed to who?
- rootlocus 10y ago
  As opposed to nobody. Everyone can say whatever they please. I was just giving examples: "you and Donald Trump".
  - masondixon 10y ago
    Yes everyone can say what they please. But if you are in any kind of liberal circle, it is social suicide to support anything Trump says. And this is what creates the echo chamber. Which prevents you from hearing the silent majority who decided this election.

eachro 10y ago

My issue with Trump has never really been about his politics. I get that immigration and loss of manufacturing jobs due to globalization are serious concerns for a large swath of the American population. What I don't understand is how anyone could feel comfortable with him as commander in chief, or as the US's representative in the international community. Perhaps that's not what most people are concerned about, but foreign affairs is probably the area where the POTUS has the most impact. The election could have and should have been his in an absolute popular vote landslide, but that didn't happen because he kept blundering into so many unforced errors during his campaign - errors that anyone with a modicum of self restraint would have avoided.

masondixon 10y ago
> how anyone could feel comfortable with him as commander in chief I understand what you are saying here. He struggles to speak eloquently, and does not have a statesman-like persona. He is no traditional president. But look at the last 15 years of foreign policy from "statesmen". We had two wars, Obama missed seeing the rise of ISIS, Syria is a humanitarian nightmare, we had a huge financial crash, and terrorism is on the rise. Trump opposed the war (was not a strong supporter before, and immediately after was certainly opposed to it). No one likes him and he doesn't owe favours to anyone. The bankers, the lobbyists, the establishment. Everything that we would agree is wrong with the country. And he did not run on a conservative platform of religion - which has nudged the entire Republican party to the left. And he use to be a Democrat. There will never be another candidate like him. But sadly no one can look past the ad-hominem character attacks.
- prairiedogg 10y ago
  Hi masondixon! > But look at the last 15 years of foreign policy from "statesmen". We had two wars, Obama missed seeing the rise of ISIS, Syria is a humanitarian nightmare, we had a huge financial crash, and terrorism is on the rise. So is your argument that "statesmen" have failed to avoid crisis, therefore someone who is not a "statesman" will be able to better avoid crisis? Would it be fair then to say that because doctors have failed to cure patients, that we should stop having doctors treat the sick? Or that because people with drivers licenses have crashed cars, that we should allow people without them to drive cars?

cyphax 10y ago

> Thankfully, freedom of speech is such an integral part of the US, that there is not one side trying to control what the other can say, and the other doing the same back. Let's hope _other_ people's freedoms aren't being taken away thanks to your vote, though. I also don't see why you would Trump will actually listen to you. Because he says so? You trust what he says? I understand and will not debate that you feel like you haven't been heard by the American political system (I immediately take your word for it), but that just doesn't mean the alternative to staying on the same path isn't significantly worse. Or do you think your life couldn't be any worse? Worse is _also_ an alternative you may have voted for.

masondixon 10y ago
> Let's hope _other_ people's freedoms aren't being taken away thanks to your vote, though. Such as? > I also don't see why you would Trump will actually listen to you. Because he says so? You trust what he says? I'm not talking about Trump listening. I'm talking about liberals listening to trump supporters trying to explain to them why they lost, and why they feel they are taking away freedom of speech. > I understand and will not debate that you feel like you haven't been heard by the American political system (I immediately take your word for it), but that just doesn't mean the alternative to staying on the same path isn't significantly worse. Or do you think your life couldn't be any worse? Worse is _also_ an alternative you may have voted for. The past 15 years have been a disaster. War, humanitarian crises, terrorism. I mean its always been a cruisy life for a white male software engineer though. But I just can't stand irrationality (as I perceive it), but more than anything the biggest risk is the attacks on freedom of speech through the liberal's bullying, public shaming, and ad-hominem attacks.
- cyphax 10y ago
  > Such as? Well, I'm thinking mostly same sex marriage, maybe the freedom of religion (which seems to be OK for most, unless you're a muslim). Trump promises a conservative SCOTUS nomination, so everything that comes out of that as a side effect has a risk of people's rights being take away, mostly the progress made under the Obama administration > I'm not talking about Trump listening. I'm talking about liberals listening to trump supporters trying to explain to them why they lost, and why they feel they are taking away freedom of speech. OK screw people who want to take away your freedom of speech (but I admit that I don't know exactly what the problem you mention is, because I don't live in the US) but the point still stands as far as I'm concerned: I understand that you're pissed off, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to abuse the presidential elections, unless (of course you really agree with Trump's ideas, in which case I understand a vote for the man), obviously. I seriously doubt it'll lead to any improvement for this group of people, which would certainly make me wonder what the _next_ elections would look like. >The past 15 years have been a disaster. War, humanitarian crises, terrorism. I'm confused. There's a large group of white males that feel left behind, and that's because of war, humanitarian crises and terrorism? Not things like a very high unemployment rate (it's <5%, doesn't seem very high?) And if it's about war, humanitarian crises and terrorisme, you vote _Trump_, who has the tendency to throw oil on the fire, to fix that? How is this outcome REALLY going to make your life better? Do you honestly believe it will, and if so, how? I mean, I hate irrationality as much as you do, but I'm still trying to understand the issue, and why exactly it's all Clinton's fault and how Trump is going to help? (I mean, a possibly rich businessman is not really part of the angry group so I don't see how it makes sense that Trump would represent a group he treats poorly)

robinwarren 10y ago

Why not have a go here, I'd be interested to hear your rationale. On a less important note, re the argument being at a level of "how could you vote for someone who said that". That may not be people refusing to engage with what you see as the important points, but them focusing on what they see as the most important points. That doesn't make it right but if it is the case you may do well to understand their point of view holds that someone with his behaviour and character can't be trusted with power, they may see everything else as somewhat irrelevant. If that is the case at least understanding it may help you frame the discussion with such people, and hopefully not dismiss their arguments as petty since they think they are the most important points. Anyway, aside complete. Let's hear the rationale for being a Trump supporter, I would be genuinely interested to hear it even if I may ultimately disagree.

masondixon 10y ago
> they may see everything else as somewhat irrelevant Yep. But this is what made everyone miss what was happening. It was an emotional response. But in this case Clinton provided so many analogous examples, which were ignored, which is just plain bias. As bad as someone is you always have to ask: could the same be said as my candidate? And with Hillary is was a yes on everything. It was always a question of "How could there be so many racists, sexists and xenophobes?". The answer was...there is not. It was the wrong question. > Anyway, aside complete. Let's hear the rationale for being a Trump supporter, I would be genuinely interested to hear it even if I may ultimately disagree. I've already posted it in a reply to this comment somewhere. Mainly corruption - the ultimate poison of a democracy. Counter productive political correctness, money out of politics, bullying and irrational feminists, sjws, and blm supporters. If you don't agree with everything they say you are sexist, racist, misogynist.
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
  > Yep. But this is what made everyone miss what was happening. What is it that you think was happening?
  - 10y ago

thenomad 10y ago

Would you be willing to articulate your argument for Trump here? I promise not to argue against you, and certainly not to slur you. Can't speak for anyone else, though. We now HAVE Trump coming in as US president, so frankly I'd welcome a bit of hope that he might be good. I can't promise to agree with you, but I'm very willing to listen to arguments from those who hold opposing positions to mine.

masondixon 10y ago
> I promise not to argue against you, and certainly not to slur you. Please argue! And thank you for not slurring :) > Would you be willing to articulate your argument for Trump here? I supported Obama. I always considered myself a liberal. I support gay marriage, I support gun control. I support universal health care. I support decent welfare and a safety net. As a programmer, the formative moment for my Trump support came when a prolific open-source developer was forced to leave the community because he would not accept a trivial change to the documentation to change gendered pro-nouns to non-gendered pro-nouns. His reason was he didn't want to mess up the revision history with a trivial change like that. And he was from South America where nouns are all gendered anyway. But one of the big companies came out and said that "they would have fired him". http://www.dailydot.com/news/github-gendered-pronoun-debate/ http://www.dailydot.com/news/github-gendered-pronoun-debate/ This was non-sensical to me, and was bullying. But I soon realised that this overly sensitive behaviour had pervaded all walks of life and all aspects of society and I soon discovered the cliched political correctness run wild with third-wave feminist bloggers, social justice, Black Lives Matter protesting of clearly non-racially motivated attacks, and that was it. Its ironic that my biggest reason for voting Trump is to stop the bullying from the left - who are protesting against...bullying (sexism, misogyny, racism). One side is for freedom of speech, the other side is for controlling what you can say. One side thinks controlling what you can say will be abused and unfairly target people, the other side thinks that freedom of speech is a means of control by the entitled. There's a calm, complex, and nuanced debate to be had here to find a middle ground. But unfortunately there is no Liberal ready to accept that this is the debate that needs to be had. The alt-right, the new right, the Trump supporters - we are ready and waiting to have this debate...

chippy 10y ago

I'm curious: > I have never been able to properly explain the rationale to a liberal Have you ever had explained the liberal rationale to you and did you understand it? I'm wondering if it works one way, or everyone struggles to understand the other. Thanks.

masondixon 10y ago
> Have you ever had explained the liberal rationale to you and did you understand it? My Medium daily update newsletter is full of feminist, progressive, black lives matter articles. I read all of them. I read all the comments on Reddit, and on HN. Everything is labelled as racism and misogynistic and full of vitriol. There is no priority on sound and valid argument. Its all about feelings. Maybe I live in a filter bubble, but I would love to find a good example of a liberal having a rationale debate with a Trump supporter about political correctness, black lives matter, etc, that doesn't revolve around something being inherently "racist" or simply ad-hominem attacks. I cannot find anything like this.
- Fraterkes 10y ago
  I'm probably more on the "SJW" side of things than a lot of people, what questions do you have?
  - masondixon 10y ago
    Do you think the response by Joyent was appropriate: http://www.dailydot.com/news/github-gendered-pronoun-debate/ http://www.dailydot.com/news/github-gendered-pronoun-debate/ Do you think this was appropriate and fair to the accused: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattress_Performance_(Carry_That_Weight) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattress_Performance_(Carry_Th... Do you think the BLM riots were justified over this: http://nyti.ms/2ctkwYZ http://nyti.ms/2ctkwYZ Do you think police shoot more black people than white people? Do you think SJWs consider the potential side effects of their approach? E.g: - Establishing diversity quotas causing resentment amongst others that "they were only hired because of diversity" even if they made it there on their own without a quota or special treatment? - Making women, and minorities feel like the system is always against them and they will not succeed so they should not try.

JohnStrange 10y ago

As a Trump supporter, you should first and foremost brush up on your knowledge what the terms "liberal" and "liberalism" actually mean.

return0 10y ago

Wise decision to create a new account for this comment! I have the same problem trying to explain to my european friends why trump won and why it is not all crazy.

masondixon 10y ago
;)
Chris2048 10y ago
I'm European, and British. I voted Brexit. I understand. If the rust/bible belters feel the same as Northern England, I fully understand.

someguydave 10y ago

>Thankfully, freedom of speech is such an integral part of the US, that there is not one side trying to control what the other can say, and the other doing the same back. That is exactly what the recent HN front page articles proposing that Facebook 'stop misinformation' are aiming to accomplish.

user837387 10y ago

You are lying to yourself. I think that you don't even realize that you are doing it it. I guess this explains how somebody can vote for Trump. And if Trump screws up the country you will again lie to yourself as to why you are not responsible. Why your vote for Trump did not matter. And then you will blame everybody else.

masondixon 10y ago
And if he doesn't?
- user837387 10y ago
  If he doesn't leave the country worse off then what it is right now then I'll admit that I was wrong in thinking that he would screw up this country. If he actually makes it better then I'll admit that he was a good choice. The country by the way is in pretty good condition right now. People have easily forgotten 2008. I really hope we do not need to do another clean up in 2020. Will you accept you screw up if he screws up the country? By the way, I think you are trying to gaslight us by using half truths. The same half truths you've used to convince yourself that Trump is good for the country.
  - masondixon 10y ago
    > By the way, I think you are trying to gaslight us by using half truths. The same half truths you've used to convince yourself that Trump is good for the country. I value rationale debate above all else. The ability to debate ideas is being silenced extremely effectively by the progressives and it will continue. For me, I prioritise this freedom of speech and ability to debate the issues with opposing viewpoints above all else. This is my true goal. This election revealed the true liberal media bias with their self-admitted inability to realise what was happening around them. > Will you accept you screw up if he screws up the country? Yep. > If he doesn't leave the country worse off then what it is right now then I'll admit that I was wrong in thinking that he would screw up this country. If he actually makes it better then I'll admit that he was a good choice. Okay!
  - 10y ago

mtw 10y ago

So how can you explain the rationale?

masondixon 10y ago
Its in this thread somewhere.

jmde 10y ago

So, I'll try to respond as someone who voted in support of Johnson, and can get the appeal of Trump as well as the Clinton, as well as visceral hatred of either. I get that huge swaths of the electorate feel like this system hasn't been working, and that' it's all manipulated by career political insiders who have their own brand of benevolent authoritarianism. I get the distrust of a liberal culture that overvalues its own contributions to society, and has a false sense of how correct they are and why they are where they are, and overlooks their own serious problems and prejudices. I understand how the media plays into this, and believe that a lot of what Trump has said has been taken too seriously or distorted, that he was projecting a character rather than an argument, and in doing so, demonstrated empathy with a huge group of the population. I get that population has been so screwed by the current system they just want something different, whether that be Sanders or Trump. However, I strongly believe that there's a false equivalence in these discussions, and that calls for "reasoned debate" on the American right are often intentionally or unintentionally meant as a negotiating tactic, to cover up arrogant intransigence on their part. They don't get what they want, so rather than contributing something constructive, they accuse the left of "not having a reasoned discussion" or not "compromising." When the GOP and Trump talk about the left "not compromising," they're really meaning "we're not getting what we want." Relatedly, do you really believe that the things that Trump has said about minorities, women, and so forth are acceptable ways of leading the United States, or treating those who disagreed with you? What would the GOP do if the liberal candidate said the same things about Trump? Which party shut down congress repeatedly rather than have a reasoned discussion? Which party has been obstructing and crippling the supreme court because they didn't get their way? The reality is that the GOP lost this election in terms of votes, and yet are still entering the white house because of a broken electoral voting system. Like it or not, Clinton won more votes than Trump. So Trump and the GOP are going to undo everything the majority voted for to get their selfish agenda, because they don't care about the majority of the electorate that voted for someone else. Who is being unreasonable in this situation? It's not the liberal party. I have plenty of reasons to be angry with both parties, but Trump is dangerous in a way that Clinton was not. Sure, I could find some bright sides to his ticket, but it's overshadowed by a lot to be terrified by.

masondixon 10y ago

davesque 10y ago

Sorry, but this notion that Trump supporters are being unfairly criticized is a complete straw man. Vigorous criticism is what we should all expect for someone who fans the flames of mistrust and xenophobia in order to accomplish their goals. There are certain lines you just don't cross. You don't imply that 20-25% of the world population (Muslims) is unfit to enter the country. You don't peddle conspiracy theories. You don't mock disabled people. You don't brag that you can do whatever you want to women just because you're famous. You don't do even one of these things, but he did all of them and more. Trump supporters need to own up to all of this instead of whining about being called out for it. You also shouldn't expect us to take you at all seriously if you comment with a throwaway account named after the Mason-Dixon line which, at one point in history, separated territories where slavery was either legal or not legal. Don't evoke civil war symbolism and slavery and simultaneously expect to have a calm, reasoned debate.