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

by 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)
  - masondixon 10y ago
    > Same sex marriage Trump: The Supreme Court has issued an opinion on this. Same-sex marriage is an issue that should have been decided by the states. There are many LGBT supporters of Trump. Milo Yiannopolous is a hero amongst all Trump supporters, and he is gay. The world has moved on - Democrats just want something to be angry about. > Freedom of religion It is about terrorism and not about religion. > He would "suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies." One of his closest friends [Thomas J. Barrack Jr.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Barrack_Jr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Barrack_Jr.) spoke at the RNC on the last day. He is Lebanese. Lets throw in all the misogyny stuff too? His daughter runs his company. His sister is a US District Judge. You have been sold such a story by the media and the campaign here. > Trump promises a conservative SCOTUS nomination So would any Republican, and by replacing Scalia, it will be the same situation as existed during the Obama years. --- > 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? You see what happened here. You just injected this narrative of "left behind" as the primary reason for the election loss. I never mentioned anything about being "left behind". Again, you are listening to the media rationalise what happened, and they are the ones who brainwashed you in the first place. This narrative means the liberals are not wrong, its just a bunch of people feeling left behind and angry - just an emotional response to the liberals righteous path. This is very frustrating - but the Trump victory is so sweet, because now we don't have to care if they still can't understand it - it will keep them out of power for even longer. > you vote _Trump_, who has the tendency to throw oil on the fire, to fix that? Trump is anti-war. Clinton is pro-war. She advocates intervention. Confrontation with Russia. Trump says: "wouldn't it be great if we got along with Russia?". Ask Wikileaks, they are extremely anti-war and they will tell you that Clinton is the danger here. > a possibly rich businessman Your words are dripping in vitriol. A "possibly" rich businessman. You might not realise it but everything you say is straight from the narrative that the media and DNC sold. Next is bringing up that he had 4 bankruptcies. Or that he is out of touch because he received a 1MM loan - which anyone could have turned into a billion dollars. I don't mean to offend here or anything. > but I'm still trying to understand the issue The issue is that you live in a liberal echo chamber. It is social suicide to openly support Trump. Even if you wanted to support some of his ideas, it would put you at risk of losing friends. I certainly didn't openly support Trump. The silent vote was real. We are called racist, but no one is racist. We are called xenophobic, but all we are asking for is that the laws are upheld. There is a progressive movement in this country that is taking shape on college campuses and will become mainstream some day, and they do not believe in the constitution or the laws of the land. Where we see borders between countries that should be secured, they do not want the borders at all. Where freedom of speech is the inalienable right, they are pushing a socialist agenda where everyone is equal no matter what the realistic implications of that are, and whether freedom of speech is trampled. I believe they are wrong because they think with their hearts and don't for see the consequences of their actions.
- mercer 10y ago
  > 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. The latter strikes me as something that is an essential part of free speech. How would you address 'bullying, public shaming, and ad-hominem attacks' without also attacking free speech in the process? That's an honest question, by the way.
  - masondixon 10y ago
    We would never try to ban any use of language. Its more like advice. We say: "Stop calling everything racist and sexist that is not racist or sexist because you are missing the real underlying issues. We want everyone to be happy just like you do, but we think your method is flawed." Then we win the election because you missed the point. This is why you will find such exuberant Trump supporters. There are many tears of joy being shed on the Trump side because of this.
    - mch82 10y ago
      Muslims often say: "Stop calling all of us terrorists and stop saying Islam encourages terrorism because you are missing the real underlying issues. We want everyone to be happy just like you do, but we think your understanding of terrorism is flawed." Can you recognize the parallel between your statement and the one I've paraphrased above?
      - mason240 10y ago
        Can you?
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - masondixon 10y ago
        But the punch line to my statement was: "Then we win the election because you missed the point." As in, ignore the message at your own peril, we don't have to care because we are content now. But in the Muslim's case, the implications for us ignoring their message are more profiling, xenophobia, etc. Which is why I would argue they need to look internally to resolve the issues inside their communities.
- mch82 10y ago
  Do you not perceive the chanting of "crooked Hillary" and "lock that bitch up" to be examples of bullying and public shaming?
  - masondixon 10y ago
    This is a public figure so there should be free reign. "lock that bitch up" - Her gender is irrelevant to her corruption so it does not make sense for it to be here. People are not chanting "lock that bitch up". They are chanting "lock her up". "crooked Hillary" - She has been under active investigation for almost the entire campaign, and the Clintons have been their entire careers. I don't see any problem with this. As long the same standard applies to both candidates.
    - zimpenfish 10y ago
      > She has been under active investigation for almost the entire campaign Noting that it has all been Republican-driven and hasn't yet found a single thing in decades. But it is definitely an excellent "poison the well" tactic.
      - masondixon 10y ago
        FBI is part of the Republican party now is it?
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        > hasn't yet found a single thing No illegal email servers then?
    - mch82 10y ago
      One example of "lock that bitch up" - http://mashable.com/2016/11/09/trump-victory-celebrations/#ysjh0oc3M8qm http://mashable.com/2016/11/09/trump-victory-celebrations/#y... Do you agree that (1) investigation is not the same as conviction, and (2) that repeating the phrase "crooked Hillary" ceaselessly is a marketing tactic designed to encourage a belief that Clinton is a criminal in order to undermine her legitimacy as a candidate?

by cyphax 10y ago

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)
- masondixon 10y ago
  > Same sex marriage Trump: The Supreme Court has issued an opinion on this. Same-sex marriage is an issue that should have been decided by the states. There are many LGBT supporters of Trump. Milo Yiannopolous is a hero amongst all Trump supporters, and he is gay. The world has moved on - Democrats just want something to be angry about. > Freedom of religion It is about terrorism and not about religion. > He would "suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies." One of his closest friends [Thomas J. Barrack Jr.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Barrack_Jr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Barrack_Jr.) spoke at the RNC on the last day. He is Lebanese. Lets throw in all the misogyny stuff too? His daughter runs his company. His sister is a US District Judge. You have been sold such a story by the media and the campaign here. > Trump promises a conservative SCOTUS nomination So would any Republican, and by replacing Scalia, it will be the same situation as existed during the Obama years. --- > 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? You see what happened here. You just injected this narrative of "left behind" as the primary reason for the election loss. I never mentioned anything about being "left behind". Again, you are listening to the media rationalise what happened, and they are the ones who brainwashed you in the first place. This narrative means the liberals are not wrong, its just a bunch of people feeling left behind and angry - just an emotional response to the liberals righteous path. This is very frustrating - but the Trump victory is so sweet, because now we don't have to care if they still can't understand it - it will keep them out of power for even longer. > you vote _Trump_, who has the tendency to throw oil on the fire, to fix that? Trump is anti-war. Clinton is pro-war. She advocates intervention. Confrontation with Russia. Trump says: "wouldn't it be great if we got along with Russia?". Ask Wikileaks, they are extremely anti-war and they will tell you that Clinton is the danger here. > a possibly rich businessman Your words are dripping in vitriol. A "possibly" rich businessman. You might not realise it but everything you say is straight from the narrative that the media and DNC sold. Next is bringing up that he had 4 bankruptcies. Or that he is out of touch because he received a 1MM loan - which anyone could have turned into a billion dollars. I don't mean to offend here or anything. > but I'm still trying to understand the issue The issue is that you live in a liberal echo chamber. It is social suicide to openly support Trump. Even if you wanted to support some of his ideas, it would put you at risk of losing friends. I certainly didn't openly support Trump. The silent vote was real. We are called racist, but no one is racist. We are called xenophobic, but all we are asking for is that the laws are upheld. There is a progressive movement in this country that is taking shape on college campuses and will become mainstream some day, and they do not believe in the constitution or the laws of the land. Where we see borders between countries that should be secured, they do not want the borders at all. Where freedom of speech is the inalienable right, they are pushing a socialist agenda where everyone is equal no matter what the realistic implications of that are, and whether freedom of speech is trampled. I believe they are wrong because they think with their hearts and don't for see the consequences of their actions.
mercer 10y ago
> 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. The latter strikes me as something that is an essential part of free speech. How would you address 'bullying, public shaming, and ad-hominem attacks' without also attacking free speech in the process? That's an honest question, by the way.
- masondixon 10y ago
  We would never try to ban any use of language. Its more like advice. We say: "Stop calling everything racist and sexist that is not racist or sexist because you are missing the real underlying issues. We want everyone to be happy just like you do, but we think your method is flawed." Then we win the election because you missed the point. This is why you will find such exuberant Trump supporters. There are many tears of joy being shed on the Trump side because of this.
  - mch82 10y ago
    Muslims often say: "Stop calling all of us terrorists and stop saying Islam encourages terrorism because you are missing the real underlying issues. We want everyone to be happy just like you do, but we think your understanding of terrorism is flawed." Can you recognize the parallel between your statement and the one I've paraphrased above?
    - mason240 10y ago
      Can you?
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - masondixon 10y ago
      But the punch line to my statement was: "Then we win the election because you missed the point." As in, ignore the message at your own peril, we don't have to care because we are content now. But in the Muslim's case, the implications for us ignoring their message are more profiling, xenophobia, etc. Which is why I would argue they need to look internally to resolve the issues inside their communities.
mch82 10y ago
Do you not perceive the chanting of "crooked Hillary" and "lock that bitch up" to be examples of bullying and public shaming?
- masondixon 10y ago
  This is a public figure so there should be free reign. "lock that bitch up" - Her gender is irrelevant to her corruption so it does not make sense for it to be here. People are not chanting "lock that bitch up". They are chanting "lock her up". "crooked Hillary" - She has been under active investigation for almost the entire campaign, and the Clintons have been their entire careers. I don't see any problem with this. As long the same standard applies to both candidates.
  - zimpenfish 10y ago
    > She has been under active investigation for almost the entire campaign Noting that it has all been Republican-driven and hasn't yet found a single thing in decades. But it is definitely an excellent "poison the well" tactic.
    - masondixon 10y ago
      FBI is part of the Republican party now is it?
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      > hasn't yet found a single thing No illegal email servers then?
  - mch82 10y ago
    One example of "lock that bitch up" - http://mashable.com/2016/11/09/trump-victory-celebrations/#ysjh0oc3M8qm http://mashable.com/2016/11/09/trump-victory-celebrations/#y... Do you agree that (1) investigation is not the same as conviction, and (2) that repeating the phrase "crooked Hillary" ceaselessly is a marketing tactic designed to encourage a belief that Clinton is a criminal in order to undermine her legitimacy as a candidate?