7 ms·

> 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

> 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.
      - mch82 10y ago
        I think that's where we disagree. Given, Dan can't change the fact he's gay. Given, Mike Pence has formally expressed that "Homosexuality is incompatible with military service" and signed into law legislation allowing businesses in Indiana to kick out gay customers when he was governor of Indiana. Given, Mike Pence's party controls the Congress, Executive, and Legislative branches of government. It follows it is likely harmful to homosexual people to elect Mike Pence. And the burden for explaining why that risk is okay falls on the people who vote for Pence and who don't want to be seen as racist, because it sure looks racist.
        Chris2048 10y ago
        > It follows it is likely harmful to homosexual people to elect Mike Pence. And the burden for explaining why that risk is okay falls on the people who vote If an establishment candidate like Hillary is seen as harmful to Bob, is there a burden on Dan to explain why the risk of voting for her is Ok?
- 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.

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.
    - mch82 10y ago
      I think that's where we disagree. Given, Dan can't change the fact he's gay. Given, Mike Pence has formally expressed that "Homosexuality is incompatible with military service" and signed into law legislation allowing businesses in Indiana to kick out gay customers when he was governor of Indiana. Given, Mike Pence's party controls the Congress, Executive, and Legislative branches of government. It follows it is likely harmful to homosexual people to elect Mike Pence. And the burden for explaining why that risk is okay falls on the people who vote for Pence and who don't want to be seen as racist, because it sure looks racist.
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        > It follows it is likely harmful to homosexual people to elect Mike Pence. And the burden for explaining why that risk is okay falls on the people who vote If an establishment candidate like Hillary is seen as harmful to Bob, is there a burden on Dan to explain why the risk of voting for her is Ok?
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.