4 ms·

"And then I woke up the morning after the election, looked at my computer, and realized that the manuscript I'd been working on was actually set in 2017, but it

"And then I woke up the morning after the election, looked at my computer, and realized that the manuscript I'd been working on was actually set in 2017, but it had become a 2017 that no longer existed," he says. "And it was so organic, and so fractally complete a change that it just crushed me. I thought 'that's dead, that whole thing I'm working on.'" Honestly, if you were deeply, dramatically surprised by Trump's election, you weren't paying enough attention. The causes of working-class angst against globalism and coastal centers of power goes back to at least the late 70s, with the offshoring of jobs and the subsequent death of thousands of towns in the now-called Rust Belt. It lead me to wonder if there is a term for such a phenomenon: the realization that your model of history was so flawed that a new, surprising event wasn't actually unpredictable, but merely based on data you were ignorant of.

metabagel 7y ago
The election probably hinged on the handling of “her emails” by the FBI Director. I don’t see how anyone could have predicted the extent to which he would bungle that. His investigation found no wrong-doing, but he publicly excoriated her anyway. Then, he opened a new investigation, which again found nothing. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probab...
- ceilingcorner 7y ago
  1) The "FBI emails changed the election" narrative is a thesis, not a statement of fact. I seriously doubt the average person knew or cared about this. This sounds like the news media over-emphasizing their own relevance. 2) I don't think it really matters for the point I'm trying to make. Even if Hillary had won, the election would have been close, thus showing that the support for Trump's platform was still widespread. If he lost, we'd probably just see a different right-wing populist candidate arise in 2020. The issues that led to his rise would still exist, which is precisely my point.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  It was a close election, there's probably a lot of single things that could have changed it. One side or the other winning a close election shouldn't fundamentally change your worldview.
  - spiritplumber 7y ago
    3 million isn't that close.
    - dralley 7y ago
      Unfortunately it isn't the popular vote that counts. Hillary won by 3 million votes, but she lost by only ~80,000 votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
pjc50 7y ago
> The causes of working-class angst against globalism and coastal centers of power goes back to at least the late 70s, with the offshoring of jobs and the subsequent death of thousands of towns in the now-called Rust Belt. So .. how's that working out? > the realization that your model of history was so flawed that a new, surprising event wasn't actually unpredictable, but merely based on data you were ignorant of. Iain M Banks calls this an "outside context problem" in Excession.
- ceilingcorner 7y ago
  > So .. how's that working out? How's what working out? I'm not in that demographic and I didn't vote for Trump, nor am I a Republican. I'm just detailing a phenomenon. The jury still seems to be out on whether Trump's Rust Belt base is benefiting from his policies, but the coronavirus may end up being more influential in returning jobs to the U.S. than anything the president could do. > Iain M Banks calls this an "outside context problem" in Excession. Cool, I will look into that.
- ehnto 7y ago
  > Iain M Banks calls this an "outside context problem" in Excession. Fantastic book, really interesting perspectives on society to be gained by the absolutely enormous lens the Ship Minds are able to view it from.
- _0ffh 7y ago
  I think an OCP is rather something that you couldn't possibly have expected. I'm not sure that this is the case here.
anongraddebt 7y ago
Agreed. This is something that seems to go over-looked. It didn't take one, or even five, years to get someone like Trump in office. This was the result of many decades of significant economic and societal restructuring.
phaemon 7y ago
> Honestly, if you were deeply, dramatically surprised by Trump's election, you weren't paying enough attention I guess I wasn't. Because I distinctly remember when Trump was just one of the Republican hopefuls, I saw that the odds of him becoming President were 1000 to 1 and I recall thinking I should put a £100 bet on it, but thought it would just be a waste of money. I guess you're retired through your foresight though? Or, wait...let me guess... you don't bet? It would be the fourth time I'd heard that. Is there some future restriction on betting that stops you time travellers with perfect knowledge of the future from cashing in?

metabagel 7y ago

The election probably hinged on the handling of “her emails” by the FBI Director. I don’t see how anyone could have predicted the extent to which he would bungle that. His investigation found no wrong-doing, but he publicly excoriated her anyway. Then, he opened a new investigation, which again found nothing. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probab...

ceilingcorner 7y ago
1) The "FBI emails changed the election" narrative is a thesis, not a statement of fact. I seriously doubt the average person knew or cared about this. This sounds like the news media over-emphasizing their own relevance. 2) I don't think it really matters for the point I'm trying to make. Even if Hillary had won, the election would have been close, thus showing that the support for Trump's platform was still widespread. If he lost, we'd probably just see a different right-wing populist candidate arise in 2020. The issues that led to his rise would still exist, which is precisely my point.
SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
It was a close election, there's probably a lot of single things that could have changed it. One side or the other winning a close election shouldn't fundamentally change your worldview.
- spiritplumber 7y ago
  3 million isn't that close.
  - dralley 7y ago
    Unfortunately it isn't the popular vote that counts. Hillary won by 3 million votes, but she lost by only ~80,000 votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

pjc50 7y ago

> The causes of working-class angst against globalism and coastal centers of power goes back to at least the late 70s, with the offshoring of jobs and the subsequent death of thousands of towns in the now-called Rust Belt. So .. how's that working out? > the realization that your model of history was so flawed that a new, surprising event wasn't actually unpredictable, but merely based on data you were ignorant of. Iain M Banks calls this an "outside context problem" in Excession.

ceilingcorner 7y ago
> So .. how's that working out? How's what working out? I'm not in that demographic and I didn't vote for Trump, nor am I a Republican. I'm just detailing a phenomenon. The jury still seems to be out on whether Trump's Rust Belt base is benefiting from his policies, but the coronavirus may end up being more influential in returning jobs to the U.S. than anything the president could do. > Iain M Banks calls this an "outside context problem" in Excession. Cool, I will look into that.
ehnto 7y ago
> Iain M Banks calls this an "outside context problem" in Excession. Fantastic book, really interesting perspectives on society to be gained by the absolutely enormous lens the Ship Minds are able to view it from.
_0ffh 7y ago
I think an OCP is rather something that you couldn't possibly have expected. I'm not sure that this is the case here.

anongraddebt 7y ago

Agreed. This is something that seems to go over-looked. It didn't take one, or even five, years to get someone like Trump in office. This was the result of many decades of significant economic and societal restructuring.

phaemon 7y ago

> Honestly, if you were deeply, dramatically surprised by Trump's election, you weren't paying enough attention I guess I wasn't. Because I distinctly remember when Trump was just one of the Republican hopefuls, I saw that the odds of him becoming President were 1000 to 1 and I recall thinking I should put a £100 bet on it, but thought it would just be a waste of money. I guess you're retired through your foresight though? Or, wait...let me guess... you don't bet? It would be the fourth time I'd heard that. Is there some future restriction on betting that stops you time travellers with perfect knowledge of the future from cashing in?