11 ms·

> in the past week, as we reel from the 2016 presidential election Unless of course, you voted for him. I'm just gonna leave this here, he says it better than

> in the past week, as we reel from the 2016 presidential election Unless of course, you voted for him. I'm just gonna leave this here, he says it better than I could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs

tdkl 10y ago
So many safe-spaces will be revisited after watching this video. [edit] And the down-votes just prove what the video is about. Lmao.
- sdegutis 10y ago
  Can you explain what you mean? I haven't seen the video.
- mfringel 10y ago
  Can you elaborate on what you think the down-votes prove? I'm unaware of any additional data that gets communicated to a poster when they get down-voted.
- derrickdirge 10y ago
  I think the downvotes are likely a result of the tone of your comment rather than whatever point you were trying to make.
  - blahi 10y ago
    The tone is part of the point he is trying to make. You guys are all inclusive but when somebody says they don't want refugees in Sweeden, they are downvotted into oblivion. God forbid you insist on your 2nd amendment rights. And God forbid you want Trump as president who actually had an agenda vs. the "$200 million for speaking engagements" Hillary Clinton. Safe spaces should be burned to the ground.
    - malnourish 10y ago
      Why exactly should safe spaces be burned to the ground?
      - tunap 10y ago
        Not a big issue for me, most media-driven issues have no bearing on my day-to-day directly, luckily. Until noise on the line could be considred an assault on intelligence, I could care less what media-darling group is being given more attention than they merit, but here's my guess: Because "safe spaces" inspire unrealistic expectations of the real world and foster dependence and normalization of more institutional controls over the rest of the populace, perhaps.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - fdgdasfadsf 10y ago
      You right to free speech does not include the right for others to disagree with you, for them to not listen to you, or even for them to not like you because of what you say - they are also exercising their own freedom of speech by doing so. Furthermore traditionally we have drawn line beyond which speech is not free (for example shouting fire in a crowded theatre is traditionally not allowed).
      - blahi 10y ago
        >You right to free speech does not include the right for others to disagree with you, for them to not listen to you, or even for them to not like you because of what you say That's exactly my point!
        fdgdasfadsf 10y ago
        OK cool. But by downvoting they are exercising free speech. (As an aside I tend to read downvoted comments first because I want to see why they were downvoted. It's more of a highlight than a downvote for me.)
kartan 10y ago
I really like that video. Dehumanizing Trump supporters is as bad as dehumanizing any other group. The answer is good reasoned discussions instead of harsh out of place answers. Playing nice has its reward in the long term.
- gaur 10y ago
  > Playing nice has its reward in the long term. Being put on a registry because of your religion isn't a reward, and historically that kind of thing has been followed by extermination. I absolutely will not play nice.
  - hash-set 10y ago
    Gun owners say the same thing--registration leads to confiscation. Somehow, their cries are ignored.
    - soylentcola 10y ago
      One, of course, might find a difference between hypothetical banning of something you own and a hypothetical banning of something you are.
      - Inconel 10y ago
        While true, it may still be a reasonable concern if one is of the belief that what they own may offer protection for who they are.
        eli_gottlieb 10y ago
        Who on the political spectrum is proposing to deport or murder all gun-owners?
        Inconel 10y ago
        To my knowledge no one. However, there are people on the political spectrum who would like to curtail or eliminate gun ownership. If you are a gun owner who believes that firearms offer a means of protecting yourself and the government wishes to take away the tool of that protection, I could understand why that may be concerning. I'm not voicing an opinion on this one way or the other, I was mearly stating that I could understand the concern. Perhaps I misunderstood the GP's comment.
linkregister 10y ago
Even people that voted for President-elect Trump reel from this election. It was the most divisive Presidential election in my memory. I believe you are seeking to find offense where there is none.
- hash-set 10y ago
  I wouldn't say "reeling" I would say "rejoicing"--we are desperate to get back any semblance of regular people having control over the levers of power in the US. ANY SEMBLANCE.
  - aleeds 10y ago
    Wow, I didn't know that a billionaire was a regular person. I guess anyone is a regular person then.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - untog 10y ago
    I'm curious - how has anything Donald Trump done since becoming President Elect shown regular people having control over the levers of power? Best I can see, he's taking the same old Republicans (Giuliani, Gingrich) and reinstalling them into government, throwing in some lobbyists and his extremely rich son-in-law for good measure.
  - jmcmichael 10y ago
    Seriously, Trump, Bannon, Guiliani, and the rest of those ghouls you consider to be 'regular people'?
  - selimthegrim 10y ago
    Please enlighten us with your definition of "regular people" here and ask yourself if the line worker at a Ford factory is necessarily instantly qualified to the CEO.
  - 10y ago
guelo 10y ago
A lot of Trump voters did it just to spite liberals. Small things like whether the candidate would do a good job running the government didn't really enter into the picture because hate of "the other side" is the only thing that mattered. And it continues now, I was just reading someone saying that the choice of Bannon is great because it upset liberals. Apparently that's the only qualification you need to run the government of the world's largest economy and military. This logic, if liberals hate it it is good, is going to be the ruin of the republic.
- ardit33 10y ago
  Dream on. I am liberal/democratic and I think this election was lost because the dems had the wrong candidate and didn't offer any thing different. It was an election of "pick the least worse choice" for many people. Period.
  - ap22213 10y ago
    Very early on the Republican (and later, Trump) strategy was to discredit and bring suspicion to Clinton - enough so that people who would normally vote for her wouldn't show up. Remember that when Clinton was Secretary of State her approval ratings were above 60% and peaked at 66%. When it was rumored that she was going to be the only candidate fielded by the Democrats, the long discredit campaign began. You can see it in the gradual decrease of her likability from 2013 onward. Also: remember that Bill Clinton, when he left office, was one of the most liked presidents in history [1]. And, that was even after the impeachment hearings. The mid-late 90s were a very positive period. So, considering those two things together, the Republicans were extremely successful. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Bill_Clinton https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Bill_Clinton
    - monksy 10y ago
      > Very early on the Republican (and later, Trump) strategy was to discredit and bring suspicion to Clinton - enough so that people who would normally vote for her wouldn't show up. Remember that when Clinton was Secretary of State her approval ratings were above 60% and peaked at 66%. When it was rumored that she was going to be the only candidate fielded by the Democrats, the long discredit campaign began. You can see it in the gradual decrease of her likability from 2013 onward. Which that is the standard strategy for running for office. Discredit your opponent. It goes both ways. Clinton tried many approaches (even some shady ones) to try to discredit Trump. She did a number on Bernie with the DNC's help. Speaking of the discrediting, even Obama did a fantastic job discrediting Hillary. (Despite turning around and endorsing in this last election.)
edthrowaway 10y ago
Since this seems to be the current political front-page thread, I'm going to get some things off my chest as a libertarian who voted straight big "L" libertarian ticket with the exception of Clinton as president (which I did with great distaste and only to vote against Trump). All of you who are raging against the censorship and unfair power of the PC and SJW movement have an absolutely legitimate complaint. I too have been prejudged and attacked by SJWs who made incorrect assumptions about me based solely on my skin color and gender. THAT SAID, do you realize what you've done by voting into power an authoritarian reality TV star with a history of chronic bankruptcy, loose business ethics (habitually stiffing contractors), and erratic behavior? I'm sure you're satisfied that the SJWs are suffering now, but have you internalized the gravity of having Donald Trump in an executive office that has grown immensely powerful after the Bush and Obama administrations and 9/11? Best case scenario is that Trump does a Nixon and uses our security apparatus to crack down on his enemies, such as the media and "traitor" Republicans. I think this is very likely. Worst case, and I say this honestly and with good faith: I can only hope we'll get to the end of these 4 years without seeing Russia occupy one or more of the Baltic republics and/or significant parts of Europe fall to far-right authoritarian/strongman parties, probably accompanied by significant violence. What would happen then? Are you all prepared to fight in WW III just to spite a bunch of whiny college kids? You all assume that everyone who opposes Trump is a "lib" or "SJW" or "Democrat". I don't give a rat's ass about any of those. The end of political correctness and social justice crusading would delight me, and I'd be very happy to see both major parties dissolve and a genuine multiparty system spring up in their place (yeah, I know, ain't gonna happen). Finally, if you're a libertarian and voted for Trump, and you thought the Bush and Obama admins were bad (and they were!), just wait. Things are going to get crazy now. Any President-elect who is Tweeting 3 a.m. rants at a specific newspaper is not going to be a president who respects the 1st Amendment (and for the record, I'm a strong supporter all all the amendments, including the 2nd). Go look at what his base has been calling for on Breibart and r/The_Donald: shutting down unfavorable media outlets, hanging Soros (a US Citizen!) for treason without trial. Seriously, go check out r/The_Donald and tell me what kind of vibe you get. How are they going to round up 3 million illegals? Random ID checks? Profiling? I think a lot of people voted out of frustration (understandable), but gave the extraordinary power of the US Presidency to quite possibly a more unstable personality than Nixon (not understandable, and totally irrational). Good luck to us all.

tdkl 10y ago

So many safe-spaces will be revisited after watching this video. [edit] And the down-votes just prove what the video is about. Lmao.

sdegutis 10y ago
Can you explain what you mean? I haven't seen the video.
mfringel 10y ago
Can you elaborate on what you think the down-votes prove? I'm unaware of any additional data that gets communicated to a poster when they get down-voted.
derrickdirge 10y ago
I think the downvotes are likely a result of the tone of your comment rather than whatever point you were trying to make.
- blahi 10y ago
  The tone is part of the point he is trying to make. You guys are all inclusive but when somebody says they don't want refugees in Sweeden, they are downvotted into oblivion. God forbid you insist on your 2nd amendment rights. And God forbid you want Trump as president who actually had an agenda vs. the "$200 million for speaking engagements" Hillary Clinton. Safe spaces should be burned to the ground.
  - malnourish 10y ago
    Why exactly should safe spaces be burned to the ground?
    - tunap 10y ago
      Not a big issue for me, most media-driven issues have no bearing on my day-to-day directly, luckily. Until noise on the line could be considred an assault on intelligence, I could care less what media-darling group is being given more attention than they merit, but here's my guess: Because "safe spaces" inspire unrealistic expectations of the real world and foster dependence and normalization of more institutional controls over the rest of the populace, perhaps.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - fdgdasfadsf 10y ago
    You right to free speech does not include the right for others to disagree with you, for them to not listen to you, or even for them to not like you because of what you say - they are also exercising their own freedom of speech by doing so. Furthermore traditionally we have drawn line beyond which speech is not free (for example shouting fire in a crowded theatre is traditionally not allowed).
    - blahi 10y ago
      >You right to free speech does not include the right for others to disagree with you, for them to not listen to you, or even for them to not like you because of what you say That's exactly my point!
      - fdgdasfadsf 10y ago
        OK cool. But by downvoting they are exercising free speech. (As an aside I tend to read downvoted comments first because I want to see why they were downvoted. It's more of a highlight than a downvote for me.)

kartan 10y ago

I really like that video. Dehumanizing Trump supporters is as bad as dehumanizing any other group. The answer is good reasoned discussions instead of harsh out of place answers. Playing nice has its reward in the long term.

gaur 10y ago
> Playing nice has its reward in the long term. Being put on a registry because of your religion isn't a reward, and historically that kind of thing has been followed by extermination. I absolutely will not play nice.
- hash-set 10y ago
  Gun owners say the same thing--registration leads to confiscation. Somehow, their cries are ignored.
  - soylentcola 10y ago
    One, of course, might find a difference between hypothetical banning of something you own and a hypothetical banning of something you are.
    - Inconel 10y ago
      While true, it may still be a reasonable concern if one is of the belief that what they own may offer protection for who they are.
      - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
        Who on the political spectrum is proposing to deport or murder all gun-owners?
        Inconel 10y ago
        To my knowledge no one. However, there are people on the political spectrum who would like to curtail or eliminate gun ownership. If you are a gun owner who believes that firearms offer a means of protecting yourself and the government wishes to take away the tool of that protection, I could understand why that may be concerning. I'm not voicing an opinion on this one way or the other, I was mearly stating that I could understand the concern. Perhaps I misunderstood the GP's comment.

linkregister 10y ago

Even people that voted for President-elect Trump reel from this election. It was the most divisive Presidential election in my memory. I believe you are seeking to find offense where there is none.

hash-set 10y ago
I wouldn't say "reeling" I would say "rejoicing"--we are desperate to get back any semblance of regular people having control over the levers of power in the US. ANY SEMBLANCE.
- aleeds 10y ago
  Wow, I didn't know that a billionaire was a regular person. I guess anyone is a regular person then.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- untog 10y ago
  I'm curious - how has anything Donald Trump done since becoming President Elect shown regular people having control over the levers of power? Best I can see, he's taking the same old Republicans (Giuliani, Gingrich) and reinstalling them into government, throwing in some lobbyists and his extremely rich son-in-law for good measure.
- jmcmichael 10y ago
  Seriously, Trump, Bannon, Guiliani, and the rest of those ghouls you consider to be 'regular people'?
- selimthegrim 10y ago
  Please enlighten us with your definition of "regular people" here and ask yourself if the line worker at a Ford factory is necessarily instantly qualified to the CEO.
- 10y ago

guelo 10y ago

A lot of Trump voters did it just to spite liberals. Small things like whether the candidate would do a good job running the government didn't really enter into the picture because hate of "the other side" is the only thing that mattered. And it continues now, I was just reading someone saying that the choice of Bannon is great because it upset liberals. Apparently that's the only qualification you need to run the government of the world's largest economy and military. This logic, if liberals hate it it is good, is going to be the ruin of the republic.

ardit33 10y ago
Dream on. I am liberal/democratic and I think this election was lost because the dems had the wrong candidate and didn't offer any thing different. It was an election of "pick the least worse choice" for many people. Period.
- ap22213 10y ago
  Very early on the Republican (and later, Trump) strategy was to discredit and bring suspicion to Clinton - enough so that people who would normally vote for her wouldn't show up. Remember that when Clinton was Secretary of State her approval ratings were above 60% and peaked at 66%. When it was rumored that she was going to be the only candidate fielded by the Democrats, the long discredit campaign began. You can see it in the gradual decrease of her likability from 2013 onward. Also: remember that Bill Clinton, when he left office, was one of the most liked presidents in history [1]. And, that was even after the impeachment hearings. The mid-late 90s were a very positive period. So, considering those two things together, the Republicans were extremely successful. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Bill_Clinton https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Bill_Clinton
  - monksy 10y ago
    > Very early on the Republican (and later, Trump) strategy was to discredit and bring suspicion to Clinton - enough so that people who would normally vote for her wouldn't show up. Remember that when Clinton was Secretary of State her approval ratings were above 60% and peaked at 66%. When it was rumored that she was going to be the only candidate fielded by the Democrats, the long discredit campaign began. You can see it in the gradual decrease of her likability from 2013 onward. Which that is the standard strategy for running for office. Discredit your opponent. It goes both ways. Clinton tried many approaches (even some shady ones) to try to discredit Trump. She did a number on Bernie with the DNC's help. Speaking of the discrediting, even Obama did a fantastic job discrediting Hillary. (Despite turning around and endorsing in this last election.)

edthrowaway 10y ago

Since this seems to be the current political front-page thread, I'm going to get some things off my chest as a libertarian who voted straight big "L" libertarian ticket with the exception of Clinton as president (which I did with great distaste and only to vote against Trump). All of you who are raging against the censorship and unfair power of the PC and SJW movement have an absolutely legitimate complaint. I too have been prejudged and attacked by SJWs who made incorrect assumptions about me based solely on my skin color and gender. THAT SAID, do you realize what you've done by voting into power an authoritarian reality TV star with a history of chronic bankruptcy, loose business ethics (habitually stiffing contractors), and erratic behavior? I'm sure you're satisfied that the SJWs are suffering now, but have you internalized the gravity of having Donald Trump in an executive office that has grown immensely powerful after the Bush and Obama administrations and 9/11? Best case scenario is that Trump does a Nixon and uses our security apparatus to crack down on his enemies, such as the media and "traitor" Republicans. I think this is very likely. Worst case, and I say this honestly and with good faith: I can only hope we'll get to the end of these 4 years without seeing Russia occupy one or more of the Baltic republics and/or significant parts of Europe fall to far-right authoritarian/strongman parties, probably accompanied by significant violence. What would happen then? Are you all prepared to fight in WW III just to spite a bunch of whiny college kids? You all assume that everyone who opposes Trump is a "lib" or "SJW" or "Democrat". I don't give a rat's ass about any of those. The end of political correctness and social justice crusading would delight me, and I'd be very happy to see both major parties dissolve and a genuine multiparty system spring up in their place (yeah, I know, ain't gonna happen). Finally, if you're a libertarian and voted for Trump, and you thought the Bush and Obama admins were bad (and they were!), just wait. Things are going to get crazy now. Any President-elect who is Tweeting 3 a.m. rants at a specific newspaper is not going to be a president who respects the 1st Amendment (and for the record, I'm a strong supporter all all the amendments, including the 2nd). Go look at what his base has been calling for on Breibart and r/The_Donald: shutting down unfavorable media outlets, hanging Soros (a US Citizen!) for treason without trial. Seriously, go check out r/The_Donald and tell me what kind of vibe you get. How are they going to round up 3 million illegals? Random ID checks? Profiling? I think a lot of people voted out of frustration (understandable), but gave the extraordinary power of the US Presidency to quite possibly a more unstable personality than Nixon (not understandable, and totally irrational). Good luck to us all.