6 ms·

The safest bet is it changes nobody's opinion. If you're left leaning, you've drowned out Trump's repeatedly false statements --or become numb to them-- no Octo

The safest bet is it changes nobody's opinion. If you're left leaning, you've drowned out Trump's repeatedly false statements --or become numb to them-- no October surprise will have an effect on you. If you're right leaning, this furthers your perspective that Clinton and Deep State are up to no good. Nobody comes across content like this without an existing world view to inspect it, and the lines have been drawn a long time ago.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
labster 6y ago
Right, but this is what makes the situation so dangerous in the U.S. If no one’s mind is changed over events like these, then we’re at a point where there are essentially two citizenries which both see the other side as toxic. We’re slouching towards civil war. Most people don’t want war, but do see the other side as harmful, so we have to try hard to avoid it. Maybe we’re all looking at it wrong, maybe a civil war increases shareholder value for Facebook? Because the way they went about this is another escalation. Nothing drives engagement like military engagements, right?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 6y ago
  I had assumed it was just that people were consuming two entirely different media streams. But I’ve had conversations recently where college educated people won’t even concede basic factual points left out of a media narrative. Like, things that can be established just by looking at some publicly available document, which I have given them. They keep just circling back to the narrative. It’s scary.
  - duckMuppet 6y ago
    You're mistake was thinking that being college educated leads to critical thinking. On the contrary, college and the University system in general is largely a credentialing and signaling system now. Very often, the public education system in the US at least removed much of the critical thinking for thinking in narratives.
  - qqqwerty 6y ago
    It is a "bad faith" problem. Bad faith arguments are made on all sides of the political spectrum, but anecdotally, it feels like one side is a little more fact challenged and relies on them fairly heavily. And the amount of arguments being made in bad faith means it is often more productive to just ignore or dismiss the other sides arguments outright. Here is a good example. Right wing media likes to point at the homelessness problem in CA and claim that that is proof that Democrats are bad at governing. The homeless issue is a fact, supported by data. And CA being a Democratic state is also a fact supported by data. But pointing to both those facts and claiming it as proof that Democrats==bad is a bad faith argument. Blue states have higher GDP, higher levels of education attainment, and lower poverty rates than red states. And homelessness is a weird metric to use as it is partially a by product of regional economic success, where a good job market coupled with an overheated housing market results in an increasing number of people willing to tough it out on the streets or in their cars. I could make a similarly bad faith argument, and point out that West Virginia has the highest number of opioid overdoses per capita, therefore Republicans==bad. But I don't need to do that because the statistics that most reasonable people would agree to use as an arbiter of state level success are already in agreement with my position. As you can see from the length of the above paragraph. These bad faith arguments require a decent amount of effort and/or knowledge to effectively counter. So as we move into this post-fact world, can you really blame people for just sticking to the 'narratives'?
    - _qulr 6y ago
      > homelessness is a weird metric to use Homeless is not a weird metric to use. It's absolutely a failure of government in the worst possible way. Democrats deserve all the criticism in the world for tolerating that situation. Still, you're correct that there is bad faith: the bad faith is that Republicans care about homelessness, which they generally do not either. Democrats deserve criticism for the failures of Democratic-controlled governments, and Republicans deserve criticism for the failures of Republican-controlled governments. In my opinion, they're both bad. Are they "equally bad"? Maybe not, but I won't accept that homelessness is a weird metric. There's a lot of bad faith is ignoring one's own faults.
      - 6y ago
- rufusroflpunch 6y ago
  I think people need to come to terms with the fact that the USA isn’t immutable and no government lasts forever. A divorce is coming and it’s better for everyone if it’s peaceful when it happens.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    > I think people need to come to terms with the fact that the USA isn’t immutable and no government lasts forever. I agree with this. The Constitution is outdated in the extreme. We're long overdue for something new. > A divorce is coming and it’s better for everyone if it’s peaceful when it happens. A divorce? I don't think that's going to work. Who gets custody of Wisconsin?
    - rufusroflpunch 6y ago
      How about the Republic of Wisconsin? The divorce doesn’t need to end with only two parties.
    - no-s 6y ago
      >>A divorce? I don't think that's going to work. Who gets custody of Wisconsin? Some warlord from Michigan?
- whoevercares 6y ago
  Is Civil war possible at all in US’s military system today?
  - hef19898 6y ago
    From an external position, I'd say theoretically yes. It is enough when a political rift goes through society and also the military. This rift could lead to failure of command coehesion, split of the military and ultimately infighting. Which could, if you ask me, be a risk in case trump wins but it is rather clear that the election was fradulent (not saying it will be, but let's assume for the arguments sake it was). In which case the military would have to decide which "president" to follow, or to follow congress, or the senate, or someone else. Which could tear the military appart, let alone to speak of the national guard.
    - jcadam 6y ago
      As a former Army officer, I completely agree with the CJCS recent statement that the military will play no role in the election process. Anything short of a clear landslide for one of the two candidates is going to result in a seriously tense/chaotic situation. Best to hunker down and hope the civilians sort their shit out before giving an order you know is going to result in a lot of resentment and formerly good, dependable people being locked up for insubordination (best case), or entire organizations dissolving in an orgy of mutiny, violence, and/or desertion (worst case). As far as a split goes, it wouldn't be "clean." Unlike in the 19th century, individual units aren't constituted from people drawn from the same geographic area. There's a centralized bureaucracy managing personnel, so most units really are a cultural melting pot made up of people from all over the country. So I don't see the military splitting, I see it falling apart.
      - hef19898 6y ago
        I was affraid that people with actual US military experience would share that sentiment. Also the international impact that would have. just thinking about a situation in which the US military would have any real role in who the next President will be gives me the chills. And it kind of would force every country with a US military presence to basically pick a side. Scary thought. I just hope that the outcome will be chrystal clear, hopefully democrat. And that if it is not unit cohesion is strong enough to prevent the US forces from falling apart.
refurb 6y ago
I agree on those firmly in either camp. But there is a big chunk of voters who aren't firmly in either camp. That's why you have Bush Jr. winning some years, Obama others and then Trump.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

labster 6y ago

Right, but this is what makes the situation so dangerous in the U.S. If no one’s mind is changed over events like these, then we’re at a point where there are essentially two citizenries which both see the other side as toxic. We’re slouching towards civil war. Most people don’t want war, but do see the other side as harmful, so we have to try hard to avoid it. Maybe we’re all looking at it wrong, maybe a civil war increases shareholder value for Facebook? Because the way they went about this is another escalation. Nothing drives engagement like military engagements, right?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 6y ago
I had assumed it was just that people were consuming two entirely different media streams. But I’ve had conversations recently where college educated people won’t even concede basic factual points left out of a media narrative. Like, things that can be established just by looking at some publicly available document, which I have given them. They keep just circling back to the narrative. It’s scary.
- duckMuppet 6y ago
  You're mistake was thinking that being college educated leads to critical thinking. On the contrary, college and the University system in general is largely a credentialing and signaling system now. Very often, the public education system in the US at least removed much of the critical thinking for thinking in narratives.
- qqqwerty 6y ago
  It is a "bad faith" problem. Bad faith arguments are made on all sides of the political spectrum, but anecdotally, it feels like one side is a little more fact challenged and relies on them fairly heavily. And the amount of arguments being made in bad faith means it is often more productive to just ignore or dismiss the other sides arguments outright. Here is a good example. Right wing media likes to point at the homelessness problem in CA and claim that that is proof that Democrats are bad at governing. The homeless issue is a fact, supported by data. And CA being a Democratic state is also a fact supported by data. But pointing to both those facts and claiming it as proof that Democrats==bad is a bad faith argument. Blue states have higher GDP, higher levels of education attainment, and lower poverty rates than red states. And homelessness is a weird metric to use as it is partially a by product of regional economic success, where a good job market coupled with an overheated housing market results in an increasing number of people willing to tough it out on the streets or in their cars. I could make a similarly bad faith argument, and point out that West Virginia has the highest number of opioid overdoses per capita, therefore Republicans==bad. But I don't need to do that because the statistics that most reasonable people would agree to use as an arbiter of state level success are already in agreement with my position. As you can see from the length of the above paragraph. These bad faith arguments require a decent amount of effort and/or knowledge to effectively counter. So as we move into this post-fact world, can you really blame people for just sticking to the 'narratives'?
  - _qulr 6y ago
    > homelessness is a weird metric to use Homeless is not a weird metric to use. It's absolutely a failure of government in the worst possible way. Democrats deserve all the criticism in the world for tolerating that situation. Still, you're correct that there is bad faith: the bad faith is that Republicans care about homelessness, which they generally do not either. Democrats deserve criticism for the failures of Democratic-controlled governments, and Republicans deserve criticism for the failures of Republican-controlled governments. In my opinion, they're both bad. Are they "equally bad"? Maybe not, but I won't accept that homelessness is a weird metric. There's a lot of bad faith is ignoring one's own faults.
    - 6y ago
rufusroflpunch 6y ago
I think people need to come to terms with the fact that the USA isn’t immutable and no government lasts forever. A divorce is coming and it’s better for everyone if it’s peaceful when it happens.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > I think people need to come to terms with the fact that the USA isn’t immutable and no government lasts forever. I agree with this. The Constitution is outdated in the extreme. We're long overdue for something new. > A divorce is coming and it’s better for everyone if it’s peaceful when it happens. A divorce? I don't think that's going to work. Who gets custody of Wisconsin?
  - rufusroflpunch 6y ago
    How about the Republic of Wisconsin? The divorce doesn’t need to end with only two parties.
  - no-s 6y ago
    >>A divorce? I don't think that's going to work. Who gets custody of Wisconsin? Some warlord from Michigan?
whoevercares 6y ago
Is Civil war possible at all in US’s military system today?
- hef19898 6y ago
  From an external position, I'd say theoretically yes. It is enough when a political rift goes through society and also the military. This rift could lead to failure of command coehesion, split of the military and ultimately infighting. Which could, if you ask me, be a risk in case trump wins but it is rather clear that the election was fradulent (not saying it will be, but let's assume for the arguments sake it was). In which case the military would have to decide which "president" to follow, or to follow congress, or the senate, or someone else. Which could tear the military appart, let alone to speak of the national guard.
  - jcadam 6y ago
    As a former Army officer, I completely agree with the CJCS recent statement that the military will play no role in the election process. Anything short of a clear landslide for one of the two candidates is going to result in a seriously tense/chaotic situation. Best to hunker down and hope the civilians sort their shit out before giving an order you know is going to result in a lot of resentment and formerly good, dependable people being locked up for insubordination (best case), or entire organizations dissolving in an orgy of mutiny, violence, and/or desertion (worst case). As far as a split goes, it wouldn't be "clean." Unlike in the 19th century, individual units aren't constituted from people drawn from the same geographic area. There's a centralized bureaucracy managing personnel, so most units really are a cultural melting pot made up of people from all over the country. So I don't see the military splitting, I see it falling apart.
    - hef19898 6y ago
      I was affraid that people with actual US military experience would share that sentiment. Also the international impact that would have. just thinking about a situation in which the US military would have any real role in who the next President will be gives me the chills. And it kind of would force every country with a US military presence to basically pick a side. Scary thought. I just hope that the outcome will be chrystal clear, hopefully democrat. And that if it is not unit cohesion is strong enough to prevent the US forces from falling apart.

refurb 6y ago

I agree on those firmly in either camp. But there is a big chunk of voters who aren't firmly in either camp. That's why you have Bush Jr. winning some years, Obama others and then Trump.