15 ms·

HN is a bad place to discuss this sort of stuff because you're always risking karma, but here goes. As a liberal, I will say that liberals drastically overplay

HN is a bad place to discuss this sort of stuff because you're always risking karma, but here goes. As a liberal, I will say that liberals drastically overplayed their hand the last 8 years. Many of us have been saying for a while that the language, tenor, and actions of recent liberal movements was ultimately counter productive. I understand and share the demand to be treated decently and equally, but admittedly things kind of got out of hand. Micro-aggression, safe spaces, trigger words - all things that have good intentions but the people who advocated for them were often, to put it kindly, un-diplomatic. With "demographics" on our side, many of us constructed this alternate reality where America, ready or not, was going to bend to our will - our worldview. And so we poked the bear. Over and over and over again. Then it woke up, tore our heads off and left us wondering what the f*ck happened.

autognosis 10y ago
>>because you're always risking karma ----- That's why the serious discussion happens on 4chan. Say WTF you think, or GTFO. I also upvoted you. :-)
prewett 10y ago
I'm not sure if you intended this meaning, but it sounds like you see (your) liberal view as the ultimately right one which will inevitably triumph in the end, its just bad tactics right now. I didn't notice this until after I got back to the US after some time in an authoritarian country, and I noticed that liberals had this similar authoritarianness of being unwilling to consider the merits of the other side, a feeling of we are certainly right and we are going to enforce it on everyone else through legislation. California just banned single-use plastic bags; it could have simply charged a fee commensurate with the costs of cleanup. Or the hot-button issues. Abortion: women's rights, yes, but the conservatives have a point that it is also killing babies. Homosexual marriage: people's rights, yes, but there are some good arguments to the other side, too. Usually issues have two sides because there actually are two different ways of looking at the problem, and to say that the other way is ignorant, intolerant, wrong, etc. is really not respecting the other side. (Full disclosure: I am a conservative. I am not saying conservatives (!= Republican) are any better, certainly we have our own failings.) I like your analogy about the bear, btw. I think you are probably right on. And even as a conservative, I was just as shocked as everyone else. Hopefully this election will get a good dialog going and people actually trying to understand the other side. That would probably make it worth it.
- alistproducer2 10y ago
  >I noticed that liberals had this similar authoritarianness IMO this is what distinguishes a traditional liberal from a a progressive. For me, a liberal is basically libertarian with a belief the state can be used to ensure the rights of citizens are administered evenly. IMO, if someone's actions aren't depriving another of life or liberty, the state doesn't have much standing in regulating that activity. Progressives believe state power can/should be used to protects their rights and their feelings. But, depending on the issue, you'll find conservatives taking the same stance. Gay people getting married deprives no one of anything. Conservatives that want they're feeling protected are no different than the "SJW" so many of them rail against. Like all things there are some grey areas. For example, the trans bathroom thing. I legitimately see both sides on that. Abortion is another I see both sides on and believe compromise is the best way forward. You'll find "authoritarians" on both sides of the political spectrum. In some cases (like abortion) conservatives have their heart in the right places. So do progressive/liberals (environmental issues, for example). In other cases, both sides can begin to see the state as a tool to unnecessarily curtail the liberty of their countrymen.
  - masondixon 10y ago
    The problem is definitions. > if someone's actions aren't depriving another of life or liberty This requires definitions of what "life" and "liberty" mean. Once you choose these definitions you must ensure they are consistently applied to all your arguments. > Gay people getting married deprives no one of anything. What does "deprive" mean? If we continued this discussion debating the definitions, the key would be ensuring they are applied consistently to all other claims by both parties. This is practically endless. Maybe we need a new dictionary that is more specific and uses examples. Just like Stack Overflow Documentation - they realised that the key to good documentation is examples.
  - serge2k 10y ago
    > For example, the trans bathroom thing. I legitimately see both sides on that Really? I don't. It's a weird thing to care so much about. > In some cases (like abortion) conservatives have their heart in the right places Do they? I guess you could argue that cruel laws like the one Pence signed in Illinois are the only recourse they have for what they consider a moral battle. I'm not sure how you can explain away fighting abortion while simultaneously fighting sexual education, contraceptive use, and welfare for those people who choose to keep the baby when they have no real hope of raising it well without help.
nnain 10y ago
> With "demographics" on our side You're over-estimating the appeal of the liberal movement on younger people. If some college kids can't openly talk about their inclination to right wing politics that doesn't make them 'liberals'.
- alistproducer2 10y ago
  I was referring to the shift in racial demographics and how unless the GOP cleaned up its act they would cease to be a national party. That was kool-aid we all drank from and it turned out to be poison.
rm999 10y ago
> Micro-aggression, safe spaces, trigger words I think you're missing some perspective on this; a small % of activists on the left (mostly on college campuses) do not represent the trends of liberals in the USA. I can't think of a mainstream Democrat who considers these serious causes (including liberal ones like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren). The reality is the left has been making huge inroads on social causes in the last eight years - in fact, this may be the primary enduring legacy of the Obama years. The public perception of gay marriage, police violence against blacks, and marijuana use have all drastically shifted and led to very real changes that won't be undone. I wouldn't call this overplaying their hands. Also, I wouldn't extrapolate much from this election. Obama is a fair bit more liberal than Hillary and is extremely popular compared to her.
- alistproducer2 10y ago
  >a small % of activists on the left A vocal minority + rapid societal change + social media echo chambers = reactionary backlash = Donald Trump presidency >I wouldn't extrapolate much from this election I would. 60+ million people voting for a man as odious and unprepared as Donald Trump says a whole lot to me. That and pretty much total Republican domination on the state level. The GOP is one state house away from being able to call a new constitutional convention[1]. 1: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a50672/state-legislatures-republicans/ http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a50672/st...
  - rm999 10y ago
    >I would. 60+ million people voting for a man as odious and unprepared as Donald Trump says a whole lot to me. Let me rephrase: you are extrapolating the wrong thing when you say the "liberals drastically overplayed their hand" and then use this election as evidence. Obama almost certainly would have annihilated Trump (his support in rural swing states is much stronger than Hillary's), and he's more liberal than Hillary. For all we know, Bernie could have done decently. Hillary's downfall is that she's seen as an out-of-touch corrupt establishment politician, which Trump (and Obama) were not.
    - 10y ago
fixxer 10y ago
This is such an elegant synopsis. I've been saying this to my HRC-supporter friends, many are horrified that I could vote for Trump. A few are no longer friends (by their choice, screaming at me from the top of their lungs that I voted for Hitler). The manner in which we discuss our differences matters. For this election, for me (a moderate in a left-leaning city), the left was worse. I genuinely hope they can change.
V-2 10y ago
This article sums it up perfectly: http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberali...
tremon 10y ago
Micro-aggression, safe spaces, trigger words - all things that have good intentions Regardless of intent, they are ultimately part of the problem, not the solution. I understand that the latter are responses to the first, but they all serve to paint every member of society with an us-vs-them brush. In the end, dialogue is a necessity to reform your broken society. Segregating off each subgroup into their own community, whether by choice or government policy, only increases distance and polarization and makes it harder for everyone to engage with other parts of society.
intended 10y ago
The wrong lesson. Jobs. Jobs jobs. You'll/us/we lost the election because the candidate didn't motivate people. For the past 8years republicans stalled all your legislative attempts. Before that they created wars and before that they created Fox News. Along the way people created global warming deniers, creationism and vaccine denial. America is at the forefront of figuring out ways to packages and deliver emotions to leverage policy and votes. Communication had already failed for the past decades. Memes/Facebook/fake news are red herrings - symptoms, not the diseases. The American legislature has become more contentious and partisan - iirc voting across party lines is seen as a sign of disloyalty. The issue is that the strategies applied and improved here are studied and applied elsewhere. A massive wall of propaganda and emotions. How can communication happen when even straight up Adoption of GOP programs (iirc mitt Romney launched the predecessor to Medicare.)is cause to Reject it. Basically how can you talk when people are rarely going to hear you? ?? I suppose the question is how can signal be sent over lossy/noisy(hostile?) channel without degradation or subversion
cmurf 10y ago
That's not what happened. What happened is, voters who said they were going to vote for a Republican largely did actually show up and vote for a Republican. Whereas a significant minority of voters who said they were going to vote for a Democrat stayed home instead. As for "smug liberalism" where if only uneducated people were given the facts, they'd make the right conclusion and be liberal, is probably a real thing; i.e. there are educated people who are still ignorant and there isn't a lot you can about it. A major factor in getting along with each other is living among each other, and that really doesn't happen in rural areas of the country. There's no real effective way to impart city dormitory life, not just social tolerance but diversity appreciation, to people who don't live in cities. The election is really not that big of a surprise. The country is this divided. It is very difficult for the same party to win three election cycles in a row. And, key Democratic party demographics didn't show up to vote in sufficient numbers that it affected the outcome of the election. This is not "tore our heads off" territory, that's hyperbole.
norea-armozel 10y ago
So, LGBT people and other minorities should just not be "uppity" when it comes to our civil rights? So we're just to sit there while rich city liberals get to decide which bills get passed and which don't? If you want to lose the next election worse than you did this time just keep doing that. And btw, Trump won because he lied to the Rust Belt voters that he'll bring back jobs that basically don't exist anymore. They'll be plenty mad by 2018 but if you keep playing this limousine liberal crap then expect them to be madder at you all.

autognosis 10y ago

>>because you're always risking karma ----- That's why the serious discussion happens on 4chan. Say WTF you think, or GTFO. I also upvoted you. :-)

prewett 10y ago

I'm not sure if you intended this meaning, but it sounds like you see (your) liberal view as the ultimately right one which will inevitably triumph in the end, its just bad tactics right now. I didn't notice this until after I got back to the US after some time in an authoritarian country, and I noticed that liberals had this similar authoritarianness of being unwilling to consider the merits of the other side, a feeling of we are certainly right and we are going to enforce it on everyone else through legislation. California just banned single-use plastic bags; it could have simply charged a fee commensurate with the costs of cleanup. Or the hot-button issues. Abortion: women's rights, yes, but the conservatives have a point that it is also killing babies. Homosexual marriage: people's rights, yes, but there are some good arguments to the other side, too. Usually issues have two sides because there actually are two different ways of looking at the problem, and to say that the other way is ignorant, intolerant, wrong, etc. is really not respecting the other side. (Full disclosure: I am a conservative. I am not saying conservatives (!= Republican) are any better, certainly we have our own failings.) I like your analogy about the bear, btw. I think you are probably right on. And even as a conservative, I was just as shocked as everyone else. Hopefully this election will get a good dialog going and people actually trying to understand the other side. That would probably make it worth it.

alistproducer2 10y ago
>I noticed that liberals had this similar authoritarianness IMO this is what distinguishes a traditional liberal from a a progressive. For me, a liberal is basically libertarian with a belief the state can be used to ensure the rights of citizens are administered evenly. IMO, if someone's actions aren't depriving another of life or liberty, the state doesn't have much standing in regulating that activity. Progressives believe state power can/should be used to protects their rights and their feelings. But, depending on the issue, you'll find conservatives taking the same stance. Gay people getting married deprives no one of anything. Conservatives that want they're feeling protected are no different than the "SJW" so many of them rail against. Like all things there are some grey areas. For example, the trans bathroom thing. I legitimately see both sides on that. Abortion is another I see both sides on and believe compromise is the best way forward. You'll find "authoritarians" on both sides of the political spectrum. In some cases (like abortion) conservatives have their heart in the right places. So do progressive/liberals (environmental issues, for example). In other cases, both sides can begin to see the state as a tool to unnecessarily curtail the liberty of their countrymen.
- masondixon 10y ago
  The problem is definitions. > if someone's actions aren't depriving another of life or liberty This requires definitions of what "life" and "liberty" mean. Once you choose these definitions you must ensure they are consistently applied to all your arguments. > Gay people getting married deprives no one of anything. What does "deprive" mean? If we continued this discussion debating the definitions, the key would be ensuring they are applied consistently to all other claims by both parties. This is practically endless. Maybe we need a new dictionary that is more specific and uses examples. Just like Stack Overflow Documentation - they realised that the key to good documentation is examples.
- serge2k 10y ago
  > For example, the trans bathroom thing. I legitimately see both sides on that Really? I don't. It's a weird thing to care so much about. > In some cases (like abortion) conservatives have their heart in the right places Do they? I guess you could argue that cruel laws like the one Pence signed in Illinois are the only recourse they have for what they consider a moral battle. I'm not sure how you can explain away fighting abortion while simultaneously fighting sexual education, contraceptive use, and welfare for those people who choose to keep the baby when they have no real hope of raising it well without help.

nnain 10y ago

> With "demographics" on our side You're over-estimating the appeal of the liberal movement on younger people. If some college kids can't openly talk about their inclination to right wing politics that doesn't make them 'liberals'.

alistproducer2 10y ago
I was referring to the shift in racial demographics and how unless the GOP cleaned up its act they would cease to be a national party. That was kool-aid we all drank from and it turned out to be poison.

rm999 10y ago

> Micro-aggression, safe spaces, trigger words I think you're missing some perspective on this; a small % of activists on the left (mostly on college campuses) do not represent the trends of liberals in the USA. I can't think of a mainstream Democrat who considers these serious causes (including liberal ones like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren). The reality is the left has been making huge inroads on social causes in the last eight years - in fact, this may be the primary enduring legacy of the Obama years. The public perception of gay marriage, police violence against blacks, and marijuana use have all drastically shifted and led to very real changes that won't be undone. I wouldn't call this overplaying their hands. Also, I wouldn't extrapolate much from this election. Obama is a fair bit more liberal than Hillary and is extremely popular compared to her.

alistproducer2 10y ago
>a small % of activists on the left A vocal minority + rapid societal change + social media echo chambers = reactionary backlash = Donald Trump presidency >I wouldn't extrapolate much from this election I would. 60+ million people voting for a man as odious and unprepared as Donald Trump says a whole lot to me. That and pretty much total Republican domination on the state level. The GOP is one state house away from being able to call a new constitutional convention[1]. 1: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a50672/state-legislatures-republicans/ http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a50672/st...
- rm999 10y ago
  >I would. 60+ million people voting for a man as odious and unprepared as Donald Trump says a whole lot to me. Let me rephrase: you are extrapolating the wrong thing when you say the "liberals drastically overplayed their hand" and then use this election as evidence. Obama almost certainly would have annihilated Trump (his support in rural swing states is much stronger than Hillary's), and he's more liberal than Hillary. For all we know, Bernie could have done decently. Hillary's downfall is that she's seen as an out-of-touch corrupt establishment politician, which Trump (and Obama) were not.
  - 10y ago

fixxer 10y ago

This is such an elegant synopsis. I've been saying this to my HRC-supporter friends, many are horrified that I could vote for Trump. A few are no longer friends (by their choice, screaming at me from the top of their lungs that I voted for Hitler). The manner in which we discuss our differences matters. For this election, for me (a moderate in a left-leaning city), the left was worse. I genuinely hope they can change.

V-2 10y ago

This article sums it up perfectly: http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberali...

tremon 10y ago

Micro-aggression, safe spaces, trigger words - all things that have good intentions Regardless of intent, they are ultimately part of the problem, not the solution. I understand that the latter are responses to the first, but they all serve to paint every member of society with an us-vs-them brush. In the end, dialogue is a necessity to reform your broken society. Segregating off each subgroup into their own community, whether by choice or government policy, only increases distance and polarization and makes it harder for everyone to engage with other parts of society.

intended 10y ago

The wrong lesson. Jobs. Jobs jobs. You'll/us/we lost the election because the candidate didn't motivate people. For the past 8years republicans stalled all your legislative attempts. Before that they created wars and before that they created Fox News. Along the way people created global warming deniers, creationism and vaccine denial. America is at the forefront of figuring out ways to packages and deliver emotions to leverage policy and votes. Communication had already failed for the past decades. Memes/Facebook/fake news are red herrings - symptoms, not the diseases. The American legislature has become more contentious and partisan - iirc voting across party lines is seen as a sign of disloyalty. The issue is that the strategies applied and improved here are studied and applied elsewhere. A massive wall of propaganda and emotions. How can communication happen when even straight up Adoption of GOP programs (iirc mitt Romney launched the predecessor to Medicare.)is cause to Reject it. Basically how can you talk when people are rarely going to hear you? ?? I suppose the question is how can signal be sent over lossy/noisy(hostile?) channel without degradation or subversion

cmurf 10y ago

That's not what happened. What happened is, voters who said they were going to vote for a Republican largely did actually show up and vote for a Republican. Whereas a significant minority of voters who said they were going to vote for a Democrat stayed home instead. As for "smug liberalism" where if only uneducated people were given the facts, they'd make the right conclusion and be liberal, is probably a real thing; i.e. there are educated people who are still ignorant and there isn't a lot you can about it. A major factor in getting along with each other is living among each other, and that really doesn't happen in rural areas of the country. There's no real effective way to impart city dormitory life, not just social tolerance but diversity appreciation, to people who don't live in cities. The election is really not that big of a surprise. The country is this divided. It is very difficult for the same party to win three election cycles in a row. And, key Democratic party demographics didn't show up to vote in sufficient numbers that it affected the outcome of the election. This is not "tore our heads off" territory, that's hyperbole.

norea-armozel 10y ago

So, LGBT people and other minorities should just not be "uppity" when it comes to our civil rights? So we're just to sit there while rich city liberals get to decide which bills get passed and which don't? If you want to lose the next election worse than you did this time just keep doing that. And btw, Trump won because he lied to the Rust Belt voters that he'll bring back jobs that basically don't exist anymore. They'll be plenty mad by 2018 but if you keep playing this limousine liberal crap then expect them to be madder at you all.