5 ms·

> So what "response" does society owe a group of people who seem to care more about having a voice for the contempt they feel towards modernity than actually ha

> So what "response" does society owe a group of people who seem to care more about having a voice for the contempt they feel towards modernity than actually having their issues addressed? Well, it's not just their issues, and of course the response would be to address those issues. Also, like it or not, they also are part of society, misguided or evil or racist or not. So what does "not owing a response" mean, then? > If you're going to argue that Trump supporters are correct to feel betrayed and angry, fair enough -- but the response of "society" to Trump and his supporters and their exclusionary response to that anger is not entirely unjustified, either. There is a difference between having an opinion on and talking about the bad things someone else does while doing good things and/or preventing them from doing those bad things, and just talking and making memes. Rolling one's eyes may be "justified", but that's like saying the people who didn't support Trump don't have to be productive because the Trump supporters started it. > It simply isn't true that "society" is composed of feckless elites incapable of self-awareness on one side (inevitably the side with all of the liberals, feminists, most immigrants, "city dwellers" and Democrats in it), and Trump supporters with their righteous indignation on the other. Where did I state it like that? You acknowledge that it could be argued that some people are justified betrayed and angry, now you knock down this straw man, while saying I have fallen "prey" to populist propaganda. So where does the correct feeling of having been betrayed fit in? I guess that just falls between the cracks, once again. Who wants to talk about that when you can scold me for a claim I never made, right? If anything, I'd say there's righteous indignation about racism and sexism on one side, righteous indignation about let's call it oligarchic concerns on both sides, a total lack of self-awareness on both sides. But then you don't get to call me prey of blind partisan views so that doesn't work. But one thing is sure, it wasn't Trump who fucked over Occupy. Republicans sure fought it, but I find it impossible to just pin it on them. Occupy was very easy to get itself to fuck itself over, and it's really high time to talk about why that is. We wouldn't even be talking about Bernie Sanders or Trump if Occupy had gone anywhere good, you know? > It isn't true that there has been literally no response to Trump other than "society turning up its nose even more" Can you give examples? And why did you start your comment with basically explaining how society owes them no response other than an exclusionary one, then? > it isn't true that the situation with Bernie has been swept under any rug, "without skipping a beat." The media and people in forums did not skip a beat at least from what I saw, for the most part it was just Trump with a bit of Hillary, no more Sanders after the election. If you disagree, I'd need examples of a beat being skipped and that actually getting any attention. (To not even speak of the claim that it has not been swept under ANY rug) > Take, say, the Bernie Sanders campaign. Which I think is important, impressive, he is doing good and courageous things, he is organizing a lot of people. That campaign ought to be directed to sustaining a popular movement which will use the election as kind of an incentive, but then go on. And unfortunately it's not. When the election's over, the movement's gonna die. And that's a serious error. > The only thing that's gonna ever bring about any meaningful change is ongoing, dedicated popular movements which don't pay attention to the election cycle. It's an extravaganza every four years; you have to be involved in it, so fine, we'll be involved in it. But then we go on. If that were done you could get major changes. -- Noam Chomsky But instead it's circus. What "populist propaganda" did I fall prey to? Populist propanda by whom? Hannah Arendt? Noam Chomsky? Trump? What is the informational content of it, other than your own straw man about completely ignorant elites (which includes immigrants and women etc. apropos nothing of anything I was talking about, just to set the emotional stage some) on one side and righteous indignation on the other?

krapp 8y ago
>Where did I state it like that? You acknowledge that it could be argued that some people are justified betrayed and angry, now you knock down this straw man, while saying I have fallen "prey" to populist propaganda. And then society has literally no response for 2 years and counting than to turn its nose up some more, while sweeping under the rug how insane it was to let Clinton instead of Sanders run against Trump, without skipping a beat Here, you claim that "society" has had no response to Trump's supporters, or their issues, other than to "turn its nose up some more." This implicitly defines two groups, "society" and "them", the latter being Trump supporters, and ascribes the quality to the former of an inability to respond to the latter with anything but a snobbish gesture of elitist contempt. This is not a description of reality, this hyperbole and stereotype of a kind only invoked by Trump supporters before wallowing in their persecution complex and lecturing everyone else about why Trump's election is their fault. And as an aside, it's odd how often Trump supporters seem to invoke their own chosen candidate's election in the pejorative like that. As if the only reason they voted for him was to punish society with his execrable presence. >So where does the correct feeling of having been betrayed fit in? I guess that just falls between the cracks, once again. Who wants to talk about that when you can scold me for a claim I never made, right? That's just it - plenty of people feel betrayed. Liberals and Democrats feel betrayed, but Trump supporters see them as the enemy. City dwellers and people who don't work in the steel mills and coal plants feel betrayed, but Trump supporters see them as part of the elitist establishment. Immigrants and the children of immigrants feel betrayed, but Trump supporters see them as the horde storming the walls of Rome, stealing their jobs and their culture. >Can you give examples? And why did you start your comment with basically explaining how society owes them no response other than an exclusionary one, then? I don't need to give examples to counter obvious hyperbole, and I never said society owes them no response other than an exclusionary one, I said society's response to their exclusionary ideals is justified.
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  > this is not a description of reality, this hyperbole and stereotype of a kind only invoked by Trump supporters Oh, and something like "a group of people who seem to care more about having a voice for the contempt they feel towards modernity than actually having their issues addressed?" isn't hyperbole? Or saying Trump supporters see immigrants as the horde storming the walls of Rome, and so on? And saying this kind of hyperbole is only invoked by Trump supporters (and I guess people who "fall prey" to their propaganda.... by having read Hannah Arendt and being reminded of something she said by an outrageous statement of Trump, without even being aware of anything any Trump supporter said about it, ever) isn't hyperbole, either. That's just sound logic, right? > before wallowing in their persecution complex and lecturing everyone else about why Trump's election is their fault. I actually asked you for examples of what you would consider a different reaction other than sweeping it under the rug. You talk a lot to not do that, while ignoring the rest. > it's odd how often Trump supporters seem to invoke their own chosen candidate's election in the pejorative like that. As if the only reason they voted for him was to punish society with his execrable presence Yeah, that was kind of the point of the Hannah Arendt quote. That's not "odd", you're just not thinking about it. > That's just it - plenty of people feel betrayed. Nah, that's not "just it", while that's all true: > Liberals and Democrats feel betrayed, but Trump supporters see them as the enemy. City dwellers and people who don't work in the steel mills and coal plants feel betrayed, but Trump supporters see them as part of the elitist establishment. Immigrants and the children of immigrants feel betrayed, but Trump supporters see them as the horde storming the walls of Rome, stealing their jobs and their culture. it's more importantly more bloat and emotional stage setting to avoid the question: Where does that some Trump voters correctly felt betrayed about some things, which you acknowledged, fit in? That was the question, and you just go on and on about anything but that, implying more of that "it's their fault they started it", while after mentioning "wallowing in their persecution complex" no less. I don't actually like reading stuff into stuff although I'm much better at it, but if I was so inclined, I would extrapolate from what you there, and what question it was a non-answer to, that because they see people with legitimate grievances as their enemy, it's fair game to do the same. But I'm not American, I don't care who started what, I'm not talking about fairness, I'm not talking about who is "better", I'm talking what I see now, about who should act smarter than they do. I'm talking about people who consider themselves intellectuals, and intellectually honest. > I don't need to give examples to counter obvious hyperbole Oh, because it's "obvious", since you can simply get hung up on the word "literally" and call it a day? You just say I ascribe an "inability to respond to the Trump supporters with anything but a snobbish gesture of elitist contempt", as if that was so laughable, you can't possibly be expected to give a counter example. How would I prove the absence of something? You say there is no absence, not an inability but an ability -- so show me an example of that. Because I literally, actually literally, have no idea what you could mean. When I say that as far as I saw, it was swept under the rug, I'm not playing to an audience, I'm being honest. > I never said society owes them no response other than an exclusionary one, I said society's response to their exclusionary ideals is justified And the functional difference is what, exactly? > So what "response" does society owe a group of people who seem to care more about having a voice for the contempt they feel towards modernity than actually having their issues addressed? I replied "to address the issues that are real", while mentioning that it's hardly just "their" issues, but you ignored that, too.

krapp 8y ago

>Where did I state it like that? You acknowledge that it could be argued that some people are justified betrayed and angry, now you knock down this straw man, while saying I have fallen "prey" to populist propaganda. And then society has literally no response for 2 years and counting than to turn its nose up some more, while sweeping under the rug how insane it was to let Clinton instead of Sanders run against Trump, without skipping a beat Here, you claim that "society" has had no response to Trump's supporters, or their issues, other than to "turn its nose up some more." This implicitly defines two groups, "society" and "them", the latter being Trump supporters, and ascribes the quality to the former of an inability to respond to the latter with anything but a snobbish gesture of elitist contempt. This is not a description of reality, this hyperbole and stereotype of a kind only invoked by Trump supporters before wallowing in their persecution complex and lecturing everyone else about why Trump's election is their fault. And as an aside, it's odd how often Trump supporters seem to invoke their own chosen candidate's election in the pejorative like that. As if the only reason they voted for him was to punish society with his execrable presence. >So where does the correct feeling of having been betrayed fit in? I guess that just falls between the cracks, once again. Who wants to talk about that when you can scold me for a claim I never made, right? That's just it - plenty of people feel betrayed. Liberals and Democrats feel betrayed, but Trump supporters see them as the enemy. City dwellers and people who don't work in the steel mills and coal plants feel betrayed, but Trump supporters see them as part of the elitist establishment. Immigrants and the children of immigrants feel betrayed, but Trump supporters see them as the horde storming the walls of Rome, stealing their jobs and their culture. >Can you give examples? And why did you start your comment with basically explaining how society owes them no response other than an exclusionary one, then? I don't need to give examples to counter obvious hyperbole, and I never said society owes them no response other than an exclusionary one, I said society's response to their exclusionary ideals is justified.

PavlovsCat 8y ago
> this is not a description of reality, this hyperbole and stereotype of a kind only invoked by Trump supporters Oh, and something like "a group of people who seem to care more about having a voice for the contempt they feel towards modernity than actually having their issues addressed?" isn't hyperbole? Or saying Trump supporters see immigrants as the horde storming the walls of Rome, and so on? And saying this kind of hyperbole is only invoked by Trump supporters (and I guess people who "fall prey" to their propaganda.... by having read Hannah Arendt and being reminded of something she said by an outrageous statement of Trump, without even being aware of anything any Trump supporter said about it, ever) isn't hyperbole, either. That's just sound logic, right? > before wallowing in their persecution complex and lecturing everyone else about why Trump's election is their fault. I actually asked you for examples of what you would consider a different reaction other than sweeping it under the rug. You talk a lot to not do that, while ignoring the rest. > it's odd how often Trump supporters seem to invoke their own chosen candidate's election in the pejorative like that. As if the only reason they voted for him was to punish society with his execrable presence Yeah, that was kind of the point of the Hannah Arendt quote. That's not "odd", you're just not thinking about it. > That's just it - plenty of people feel betrayed. Nah, that's not "just it", while that's all true: > Liberals and Democrats feel betrayed, but Trump supporters see them as the enemy. City dwellers and people who don't work in the steel mills and coal plants feel betrayed, but Trump supporters see them as part of the elitist establishment. Immigrants and the children of immigrants feel betrayed, but Trump supporters see them as the horde storming the walls of Rome, stealing their jobs and their culture. it's more importantly more bloat and emotional stage setting to avoid the question: Where does that some Trump voters correctly felt betrayed about some things, which you acknowledged, fit in? That was the question, and you just go on and on about anything but that, implying more of that "it's their fault they started it", while after mentioning "wallowing in their persecution complex" no less. I don't actually like reading stuff into stuff although I'm much better at it, but if I was so inclined, I would extrapolate from what you there, and what question it was a non-answer to, that because they see people with legitimate grievances as their enemy, it's fair game to do the same. But I'm not American, I don't care who started what, I'm not talking about fairness, I'm not talking about who is "better", I'm talking what I see now, about who should act smarter than they do. I'm talking about people who consider themselves intellectuals, and intellectually honest. > I don't need to give examples to counter obvious hyperbole Oh, because it's "obvious", since you can simply get hung up on the word "literally" and call it a day? You just say I ascribe an "inability to respond to the Trump supporters with anything but a snobbish gesture of elitist contempt", as if that was so laughable, you can't possibly be expected to give a counter example. How would I prove the absence of something? You say there is no absence, not an inability but an ability -- so show me an example of that. Because I literally, actually literally, have no idea what you could mean. When I say that as far as I saw, it was swept under the rug, I'm not playing to an audience, I'm being honest. > I never said society owes them no response other than an exclusionary one, I said society's response to their exclusionary ideals is justified And the functional difference is what, exactly? > So what "response" does society owe a group of people who seem to care more about having a voice for the contempt they feel towards modernity than actually having their issues addressed? I replied "to address the issues that are real", while mentioning that it's hardly just "their" issues, but you ignored that, too.