46 ms·

> Their legal cases are rejected. The mainstream media refuses to take them seriously. Well these last two seem pretty par for the course for illegitimate clai

• nicbou 6y ago
  Yes, that is what reddit, twitter and Hacker News reinforce constantly. It's either because it's true, or because the other side has been repeatedly discouraged from adding their two cents in those communities. I've been seeing the world through this lens for so long that I can't tell. I find it somewhat implausible that half the population is dumb, racist and all those other labels. It seems much more likely that I don't fully understand their perspective.
  • mmastrac 6y ago
    It's not half the population but a significant portion of people are really that dumb and racist. We just need to figure out how to avoid them getting programmed like this.
    • Stoic0 6y ago
      I know. Let’s ship em all to gulags for re-education and right think!
  • botwriter 6y ago
    Why does the left have to censor the right? Surely they should be able to beat the right with logical and reasoned arguments? Censorship has always struck me as a tool that a side which isn't confident in its arguments uses.
    • ratww 6y ago
      A large portion of extremists are not willing to discuss the results of the election even with other Republicans. People were calling Pence a traitor, boycotting Fox, etc. Those people are not willing to talk to or listen to anyone who's supposedly on their side but has a different opinion. What makes you think they will listen to the "other side"?
      • LetsPlayNice 6y ago
        I understand what you're saying, but in my limited experience, it appears it isn't exactly what information is being presented so much as How it is presented. Often I see some with a differing opinion begin along the lines of: "You're an idiot Trumper, you're killing the planet!!" How about begin with a question to engage? For example: " why is it you think climate change doesn't exist? From the studies I've seen, I was convinced. " That's better right?
        • ratww 6y ago
          You seem to be requesting perfection from one side but not from the other. To keep on the previous example: Pence and Fox News never called anyone "idiot Trumper" or anything and they are being attacked by that crowd. About climate change: Greta Thunberg has been called all kinds of names without equivalent provocation. And there's a lot of people willing to engage with climate change deniers in the way you're suggesting they should, but a large part of climate change deniers are not willing to accept that those people are acting in good faith. There's lot of accusations that non-deniers are paid shills and stuff like that. Again, why does every person on one side has to be perfect, but the other side gets a pass? Even the Republicans can't control the Trump crowd.
  • grahamburger 6y ago
    > I find it somewhat implausible that half the population is dumb, racist and all those other labels. It's (thankfully) not half the population. The vast majority of trump voters would be just as disgusted with the nastier parts of parler as you and I are, just like most Biden voters are honestly pretty disgusted with some of what happened under the cover of the BLM protests.
  • lanstin 6y ago
    When I study history of various places and times, fifty percent of the population has often done a lot of questionable things, especially at the behest of leaders willing to use irrational divisions, like skin color, to enhance their power over that fifty percent. And, to tie it to ycombinator, isn’t the software motto 80% of everything is crap? And to semi-agree with your paean to understanding, there are people whose actions I deplore and whom I know well enough to glimpse thru their eyes, and the combination of constant emotional disregulation and self-centered ness means one can try quite hard to be good and be nothing be a source of evil actions. Understanding this emotional reality has helped me to stay clear headed when confronted with the maelstrom, but has not lessened my determination to oppose the actions.
  • Tokkemon 6y ago
    It's far more likely that half the population has been duped into following someone because of clever conniving. Trump knew exactly what to do to build up that base and now that their head is gone, the chicken is running around in the yard with no direction wondering what the hell happened. Once the dust settles, I think a lot of those people will reintegrate into society, especially if they start to receive the benefits of good governance, such as healthcare, assistance due to COVID, robust anti-discrimination, job prospects, etc.
    • jpttsn 6y ago
      I very rarely hear this hope expressed and I struggle to believe it—can you elaborate?
      • Tokkemon 6y ago
        I don't doubt that so many people on the right are hurting. Their constant accusations of being called the "fly-over states" is totally true. There is endless rural decay, industry is gone. When life is difficult like that, it is very easy to pine for a time gone past when things were better. But now it's gotten so bad that people are desperate. COVID-19 has made it much worse, and people don't want to follow restrictions as it could be an existential threat. So they try and latch on to the one guy that is rich, because they are not; the one guy that talks straight, tells them what they want to hear. And they fall for him, and pledge their support. Combine that with a severely underfunded education system where people don't think critically and just think to tests or drop out, people can be swayed easily. Just look at the people at the Capitol riot. These people are not smart and thoughtful, you can tell by their incoherent ramblings. They have been incited by their environment. Yes they chose to go to DC and they deserve to be punished for it, but I can sympathize with what brought them to this place. The problem is Republicans are so bad at dealing with those issues, because they require broad-based governmental programs since private enterprise has abandoned those communities. My optimistic hope is that with a few years of widespread governance by the Democratic party, we may see some wide-reaching assistance reach these people. Get education reformed, get police reformed. Teach these people that hating black people actually causes their own outcomes to get worse. Support their businesses that they have had to scrape together. Pass widespread healthcare reform so healthcare is accessible to all, not just the rich. Build up people, don't tear them down. And, most importantly in the short term, vaccinate the whole country to get past this COVID-19 pandemic so the economy can get back to full strength. I think once that happens, and the Trumpers have some time to grieve from the loss of their former leader, these people will come back to the fold and see that hate isn't a useful method of getting what they need.
  • colinmhayes 6y ago
    >I find it somewhat implausible that half the population is dumb, racist and all those other labels. It seems much more likely that I don't fully understand their perspective. I don't think you've met enough people. Most people I've met are gullible idiots who are looking for excuses to believe nonsense.
    • tanseydavid 6y ago
      In all seriousness, if most people you have met are 'gullible idiots who are looking for excuses to believe nonsense', then it may be you, perhaps, who has 'not met enough people?'
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      • colinmhayes 6y ago
        That's possible, but 75 million people voted for a con man, so it seems unlikely.
    • treeman79 6y ago
      Hired in at a New York company. Quickly realized they absolutely hated straight white men. All day long was bashing, talking about how evil/ stupid they are. Most bigoted hateful people I’ve ever seen. All convinced they shit gold.
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  • nxc18 6y ago
    > I find it somewhat implausible that half the population is dumb, racist and all those other labels Why do you think this? Racism was the absolute norm in the US until ~not that long ago. It’s literally written into the constitution and it took literal bloodshed to change that. And then when we did, there was massive pushback in the form of Jim Crow laws. Statistically you’d expect half of people to be dumber than average. Our (non-higher) education system in the US is nothing to be proud of and wildly inconsistent at best. Add in politician deliberately lying (e.g. republicans ignoring climate change, republicans denying covid while adjusting their portfolios to take advantage) and stupidity is clearly the norm.
    • tenaciousDaniel 6y ago
      Where is racism "literally written" into the constitution? edit: look I know it's bad form on here to complain about being downvoted, but I was asking an honest question. Chill, people.
      • 56quarters 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
      • _rend 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise The Three-fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. Delegates disputed whether and how slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population, as this number would determine a state's number of seats in the House of Representatives and how much it would pay in taxes. The compromise counted three out of every five slaves as people... In the US Constitution, the Three-fifths Compromise is part of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [italics added].[2]
  • LetsPlayNice 6y ago
    I appreciate your honesty and I will attempt to explain, briefly, so you might understand better. 1. Most people on the right are against abortion for the reason that it is against their particular religion, which declares it as murder and murder is wrong. But, the others don't care at all about a woman's right to choose, they just don't want their tax dollars paying for that choice instead of other things they want. It really is that simple. As far as the court goes, that is completely different. The saying goes "you can indict a ham sandwich ", and that is largely true. Courts all over the nation entertain frivolous actions on a daily basis, people love this (Judge Judy), but when cases are preliminary dismissed without the "day in court" faith in the court will be quickly lost by those who believed win or lose, it should have been heard. Each person reading this was raised in a time when they were taught every vote counts, your opinion matters, and to stand up for what you believe in while respecting the opinions of others. The opinion of one side is no longer even listened to, let alone respected. How many of you have ever genuinely tried to explain to someone with a different opinion why you disagree with them? I don't see that much anymore. Not everyone with a different opinion is set in their beliefs. Some may welcome your perspective and shift their viewpoint to yours. It's worth a try, right? Apparently not for most. Instead, the right is vilified, insulted, and they believe they are treated differently and unfairly from the left. Their voices are being systematically taken away through deplatforming. They are being stereotyped and lumped into a single category along with extremists. So, the logical conclusion is that if you isolate, disparage, and discourage someone enough, they will become you've now convinced them they are. Multiply that by 70 million. Instead, try talking to people with the goal of explaining your point of view and why you feel that way. It certainly can't hurt more than what's happening now.
    • all_factz 6y ago
      But your own post makes clear the problem with your logic. This isn’t about convincing people. It’s about the fact that people’s political views are guided by gut, instinct and the bubbles they’re in instead of by critical thinking. These people believe abortion is killing an innocent baby. They don’t want their tax dollars spent on thing X. They believe the election was rigged — evidence doesn’t come into it. How do you change what people believe? I think we’ve tried rational debate. God knows I have. It’s frustrating to be told over and over, “well, if you just explained better...” when the people I’m trying to convince aren’t interested in learning. They’re happy with their beliefs, their beliefs work for them. And that’s a pity, because their beliefs are destructive and increasingly inhumane. That’s my belief, obviously, but I think it’s one supported by facts: abortion is wrong but you can cage Mexican children. The Jews control the government. Voter suppression is a reasonable response to higher turnout in urban centers. Chinese students shouldn’t be able to go to grad schools in the US. I could go on. At a certain point, just take the hit. I’m sorry, but one side has more moral politics than the other. I don’t see how this is a debate at this point, and I’m honestly frustrated that people like you keep asking us to have the debate. If anything, it’s the right that keeps crying that they’ve been deplatformed when they’re doing it to themselves by having horrific opinions. AND the right doesn’t even argue in good faith! Like they just make stuff up. For instance, about ANTIFA being behind the attempted coup on Wednesday. You want us to argue with that?
  • Terretta 6y ago
    > I find it implausible half the population is dumb Half the population is dumber than average.
    • sillypecan 6y ago
      Yes, but the average person is smart. For instance, if I average 95, 95, and 95, then the average is 95. If I average 94, 94, 94, 95, 95, and 95 and the average is 94.5, does that mean the other half is stupid? Of course not, which is why people who keep saying this over and over are below average. You can tell because they aren't saying anything important.
    • lliamander 6y ago
      It's highly improbable that the right wind of politics solely resides within the lower half of the bell curve, or that there is even a strong correlation.
      • freeone3000 6y ago
        No, it's not, because it's a self-association. You might as well say it's highly improbable that the lowest income are also the least educated -- nothing says these variables are independent, and it's highly likely that they are, in fact, linked.
        • lliamander 6y ago
          Let me put it this way: there not a strong correlation, and the relationship is too complicated to support nice, self-serving narratives.
    • chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      depends on how you calculate average. More than half the population could be dumber than the mean intelligence. Intelligence is not a normal distribution, but skewed left.
  • analog31 6y ago
    In my view, ever since the "deplorables" gaffe, the left has been bending over backwards to pretend to take the "base" seriously instead of just dismissing them as cretins. Naturally the leaders of the "base" are going to take advantage of this.
  • jmknoll 6y ago
    Is it really that implausible that half the population isn't willing to think critically about a nuanced problem, or to accept evidence that contradicts their desired narrative? Statistics aren't always reliable, but somewhere around 1/3 of American adults believe that climate change is a hoax, and evolution is a lie.
    • lr4444lr 6y ago
      Fine, but do their hair-brained ideas and failure to think critically merit shutting them out of public discourse?
      • enneff 6y ago
        They're clearly not shut out. There are major news outlets that represent them, and their voices are heard loud and clear all over the internet. One of them was elected president FFS.
      • burnte 6y ago
        If they can't stop threatening people, yes.
      • freeone3000 6y ago
        If they're shut out of public discourse, why do we keep hearing about them?
      • wilsynet 6y ago
        They aren’t shut out. It’s not a left vs right thing. Whether your ideas are hairbrained or not, left wing or right wing — if you incite violence they should take away your account.
    • diskmuncher 6y ago
      Let's assume that all the issues are binary (i.e. you are either for or against a proposition). But there are a large number of them. Humans are lazy. We try to use few categories to organize people we come into contact with (e.g. left or right, colored or white). What will happen next? We feel that "the other side" seems to be all around, almost half the population. Example: many who oppose abortion probably also believe Black Lives Matter.
  • creato 6y ago
    What is the point of your post? The post you are replying to cited a specific law regarding specific threats. What does that have to do with what most people believe or whether most people are dumb or not?
  • radley 6y ago
    I recommend reading a history book of any country. It's unfortunately been proven to be plausible over and over...
  • burnte 6y ago
    > or because the other side has been repeatedly discouraged from adding their two cents in those communities. They have been discouraged from making threats, being racist, etc. If that is their two cents, it's not worth two cents. If they can't have a civil discussion without threats, racism, bigotry, etc, again, it's not worth two cents. This is they key, they KEEP coming back with vile speech. No one deplatforms them for simply having DIFFERENT opinions, they're deplatformed for having violent, racist, bigoted opinions. You can't equate silencing dissent from not tolerating hate speech.
  • wisty 6y ago
    I think what really annoys the far right is how the far left seems to get an easy ride. There's plenty of left-wing conspiracy theories. The current ones seem to be that the Capitol Police were allowing it to happen (not just through incompetence). This is given a huge amount of credence, but I'm willing to bet that it will mostly be proven to be conspiracy thinking and hysteria. It's actually a bit exhausting. It's not at all clear that the police are "opening gates" on that one shakey zoom shot (hundreds of people, but it's just one zoom shot that shows it, hmmm). It looks to me like an officer has their hand forced aside as a large number of protesters push the barrier, which looks a bit like they are "opening the gate" (it's not a gate). And they do abandon the post once they're outnumbered and no longer have a barrier, so what? If there's a shot from another angle that makes the police look better, I expect very few people on the left will want to share it. I don't expect any real thanks for pointing this out. Rather, like hysterical conspiracy theorists, I expect people will then say "Yeah, well ... how about the selfie?" (You mean, the cop who was encouraging criminals to post evidence of their crime?). That's what conspiracy theorists do, they don't stop and critically reassess their position when they're shown that a piece of evidence is weak. They don't realise that they're caught in a bubble where poor evidence is amplified as long as it supports their position, they just assume that the debunker is a bad guy and reach for a new piece of evidence to use as a weapon.
    • zepto 6y ago
      I agree with you that left wing logic doesn’t get attacked as ferociously as right wing logic does. Having said that, the blame for that in my view lies with the right - where else is the critique going to come from? The far left doesn’t seem to get an easy ride when it comes to the street: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polices-tepid-response-to-the-capitol-breach-wasnt-an-aberration/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polices-tepid-respo...
  • Proziam 6y ago
    > I find it somewhat implausible that half the population is dumb, racist and all those other labels. The reality is that most Trump supporters are focused on economics and governmental overreach, not race. They are angry that businesses are shut down, and people are unemployed. They are angry that, over the past several decades, production in this country has dropped to near-nonexistence. They are angry that the lockdowns have made it impossible, even in small towns and other places without significant Covid problems, to simply work and live their lives semi-normally. Then, the straw that I believe broke the camel's back, is the way most conservatives view taxes and the "stimulus" In short, the conservative view is that the US government took $2700 from every citizen (much more if you look at the long-tail economic effects) and 'gave back' $600. At the same time, even a cursory read of the omnibus spending would be enough to make anyone's blood boil, let alone someone who feels like they, or people they care about, have lost (or are losing) everything. It's easy to see how the phrase 'Taxation is theft' is picking up so much steam right now. The entire time they are dealing with this, people call them a Nazi or White Supremacist. They get banned on Social Media for sharing (now verified by left-of-center Media) stories about Hunter Biden, or concerns about the election. To them, it feels like they are being silenced and oppressed. When the media/social media censors stories and information (and even raw footage) it increases tensions. 'Over the target' has become a phrase in common use for when someone is banned or a story gets censored that seems to go against the mainstream narrative. The Hunter Biden story is one such example. When that story launched it was discredited and called fake news, today the same institutions who called it a lie are publishing that there is an FBI investigation into Hunter Biden. Many saw that story, saw the leaked photos (many of which are extremely unsettling), and then saw the story getting silenced and discredited. Looking at comments on HN, a site where the average commenter has far above average education and income, it is easy to find people openly commenting that they do not care about the opinions of these people. They openly comment that 'anyone who would storm the capital is an idiot' or that these people are racist. Finally, after all is said and done, the reaction from the left in Washington isn't to reduce tensions and try to reach peace. Nor is it to address the concerns of the people publicly. Instead, they are ramping up the tensions and saying that people are guilty of treason - a crime punishable by death. You have elected officials calling everyone who was there, whether they were violent offenders (criminals) or not, terrorists. Now, they're calling this riot 'as bad as 9/11' where thousands of Americans were killed.
  • ImprovedSilence 6y ago
    >> It seems much more likely that I don't fully understand their perspective. I think two things are going on here: 1.) There is a radicalized minority of conservatives that believe in Q, storm the capital, etc etc. I think this minority is growing in size, as their publicity alone is lending them credence. It's easier to get someone to believe what they want to believe, than the truth if it goes against their world view, etc etc. 2.) The large majority of R voters are not off the wagon lunatics, and many claim they liked trump the least of all the R cannidates in 2016. But I think huge portions (*of both sides*) are so conditioned to whatever group of beliefs they hold, that they will never switch or compromise. So now we have a bat shit crazy president, because he out primaried several indistinguishable moderate opponents in 2016, and the whole R side (that is not stark raving mad) went with him, purely because they couldnt even start to entertain the thought of ever voting for a D. And now some of them are becoming radicalized, and it's kinda scary when people you know to be rational are asking you about election fraud... remember, its easy to believe what you want to believe... Below is something I posted some time ago, where I tried to outline how I thought many trump voters rationalized voting for him. >>. What I fail to understand, as a foreigner, is how someone can vote for a president who is an outright liar. Look no further than his last tweets as of right now. I don't fully understand it myself, but as it's been explained to me by trump supporters is: "don't listen to what he says, look at all the good policy, look at how hard he is on China, look at how many jobs there were pre covid, etc etc". Whether or not you see his policy as good, some people do, and they are willing to overlook his madness because they think he is achieving good things. (actions speak louder than words, etc) Some of his supports do bring up his appointing of tons of federal judges, and this what I would probably consider the most valid reason for voting for him (if one is aligned to a more conservative viewpoint), as his judges are more likely to enforce (or not) the laws that align with "traditional" republican political ideals, and that's the what matters to the voters. Or also because they've always voted R, and Biden= socialism (which is worse than satan worship according to some people's moral codes..), or Biden= Let our cites get burnt down by rioters. This goes back to the, it's easier to vote against someone than for someone. And now that I put this all in words, this second justification is probably what I heard the most during trumps 4 years, some peoples defense of trump always came down to, "but hillary would be way worse". Some level of cognitive dissonance definitely plays into it. Also having some subset of the population support a populist, pathologically lying sociopath is not necessarily a new or uniquely American problem. It's just that the problems seem to be amplified when they are American, cuz everyone is watching.
  • jariel 6y ago
    "I find it somewhat implausible that half the population is dumb, racist and all those other labels. " No - they aren't. The answer is very easy: They believe Donald Trump. Trump has credibility in their minds, and when he repeats the lie, over and over - that 'the election was stolen' - they believe it. On election night - he literally came out and said 'If you count the fake votes, Biden won' - declaring mass fraud, without any evidence. His followers believe him. Contemplate the implications of that. These people do not watch CNN, they watch Fox, OAN, Breitbart etc. where the falsehoods are propagated, or at least never debunked. They are simply misinformed. On CNN they were interviewing quite a number of protesters and unanimously 'they believed the election was stolen'. A close observer will have noticed that the court cases were thrown out, that Homeland Security and the DoJ cleared it etc. - but that truthful information is not passed on to people in the Trump Bubble. Trump's base don't get their news from sources that will explicitly and clearly debunk the conspiracies. It's important to contemplate what this means: it's almost entirely not a political divide - it's mostly a divide based on what the facts are. Consider the corollary: Trump won the election, but there was point-blank, irrefutable evidence that he rigged it. The DoJ, Homeland Security - everyone - points out his fraud. Trump could merely deny the allegations, declare that he is 'under attack' and rally people to his cause on Twitter and Facebook. His followers would believe him. Meanwhile - how would you feel? Literally the election was stolen by Trump. Point-blank evidence. Would you hit the streets in protest? Would you 'occupy DC'? Millions would be enraged, we'd see protests like we've never seen before. So just contemplate that a considerable number of Americans are completely misinformed and deeply believe the election was stolen and that the Republic is being usurped. From that perspective, their actions seem more rational. I've been watching the right-wing media carefully - and while Fox mostly doesn't openly support Trump's claims, they don't spend a lot of time debunking, and they 'go along with it' in a sneaky way by saying 'Millions feel there was fraud and their voices must be heard' - essentially avoiding taking the position that Fox agrees there was fraud, but rather sympathizing with the angry masses who they darn well know are misinformed. FYI it's actually considerably easier to 'cast doubt' on elections where there is always some small degree of fraud whereupon the tiniest case can be used as 'evidence'. This insurrection is not about racism or any of that (these things overlap obviously) it's an election based on Fake News. I know that HN is pretty serious about 'Free Speech' - but folks - Twitter is Trump's primary tool of misinformation - it's his daily dose of koolaid and falsehoods to quite a few million who absolutely take his word for it. And finally - the opposite is also true: these followers assume that CNN, NBC, NPR etc. are entirely made up of lies. Nothing on those channels has any credibility in their eyes. This is a revolution based on Fake Information.
  • kiawe_fire 6y ago
    I can tell you from my experience that, regardless of forum, I feel rarely given the chance to even give a perspective that I feel is taken seriously, because the immediate assumption is that anyone who has opinion "x" on subject "y" must be a bigot and/or uneducated (and therefore should not be listened to), and, using circular logic, they know this because opinion "x" is a bigoted or uneducated opinion. I have highly conservative economic policy views, and they are the result of both education and personal experience. I grew up in increasing poverty as a kid, culminating in facing homelessness in the 2008 housing crisis. I saw the effects first hand of several policies sold by "progressive" politicians to me and my family as instruments of change that would expand the welfare of the nation to us, and for several years hoped they actually would. Yet each policy meant to help us, only ever seemed to do the opposite. I drove a car that I was lucky if I could get started each day to go to college and to work, yet the liberal "cash for clunkers" program meant to give people an opportunity to buy a new vehicle meant that not only could I not afford a new car even after the additional "cash", but now the used car parts market was so expensive because of the sudden destruction of "clunkers", it also made keeping my car running nearly impossible. A healthcare bill that I hoped would fund my parent's healthcare needs ended up giving us a choice - pay for a plan we couldn't afford with deductibles so high we would never be able to use it, or take our chances that the IRS would never collect on the individual mandate. Each step of the way, liberal politicians would pass something on the notion that it was to help people like me, only for it to hurt me, but even worse, I was now "racist" and "dumb" for opposing them. I reached a point where I no longer wanted government to help me be "equal", I just wanted them to leave me alone and stop making it harder than it already was. Yet I kept being told this elitist group of leaders in Washington knew better than me, even as with each "experiment" they were left completely unaffected by the consequences that I was left with. After 4 years of college towards a computer science degree, I'm incredibly grateful for my education, and I have since been able to do incredible things for my family with my income from a career I love. I now have the freedom to advocate for the same liberal policies my co-workers advocate for, knowing that whether they work or not, I will be wholly unaffected. This way, I could be easily accepted and free to voice my political opinion along everyone else, without fear of being called a bigot. But my experience growing up is exactly why I believe what I believe, and I can promise anyone willing to listen that, for as strongly as you believe you are representing the welfare of the poor, or of minorities, so do I. Not out of racism or ill intent, but precisely the opposite - my own experience, and my desire to help others with what helped me. My education served to expand my mind to be open to everyone's perspective in a way that I feel gave me empathy. Empathy to see that, while my experience drives me to conservative fiscal policy and socially libertarian policy, I would never want to judge someone else's motives based solely on their political persuasion. Others likely had different life experiences that I would do well to learn from. To me, the goal of an education is the ability to have empathy for multiple, potentially conflicting views at once, and make decisions based on that. I really struggle with the notion that many seem to have that, instead, being educated seems to mean "empathize with a single viewpoint, and make decisions for everyone based on that, with the assumption that I must be more correct in my assertion than the people for whom I'm deciding, because I'm educated and they are not".
  • dragonwriter 6y ago
    > I find it somewhat implausible that half the population is dumb, racist and all those other labels. The GOP is only 29% of the electorate by party ID, 31% by share of eligible population voting for their 2020 Presidential nominee. Not “half of the population”. But whether the members of the GOP are “dumb, racist, and all those other labels” kind of has nothing to do with what you quoted, which is about whether lawsuits filed by a narrow segment of the party in this cycle are overwhelmingly legally without merit or are somehow being systematically reject by rampant conspiracy or bias against the President in both state and federal judiciaries, which in the relevant states and the Federal system lean significantly Republican, and where many of the specific decisions have been handed down by Republican judges (some appointed by this Administration.) That's not a question about whether the GOP membership as a whole racist, stupid, or whatever else, but whether a present President and his allies are filing lawsuits in bad faith as part of propaganda campaign to publicly discredit their defeat in the election.
  • jackjeff 6y ago
    > I find it somewhat implausible that half the population is dumb, racist and all those other labels. Have you met people? How would credit card companies, casinos and multi level marketing have a business model if that was not the case?
  • willyt 6y ago
    The problem is that you have a two party system, so all viewpoints have to fit into one of those parties. Democracy is a spectrum running from North Korea to Scandinavia. I.e from Dictatorship > One party > Two party > De-facto Two party (first past the post Parliamentary) > Coalition government with proportional representation. The huge advantage of coalition government being that unless you have extreme views, your politicians are always at the table so your views are never completely ignored for 4 or 8 years. So yes I’m arguing that the US is actually quite undemocratic compared to other first world countries, and the U.K. where I am is not much better.
  • spoonjim 6y ago
    95% of the country was racist 100 years ago. Why would things change so fast? And for dumb... remember Carlin’s observation: think about how dumb the average person is, then realize that half of them are dumber than that.
  • AvocadoPanic 6y ago
    Here's some perspective. A man was shot and killed by the police in a town not far from me. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/man-shot-by-newton-police-identified-911-call-released/ar-BB1czesJ https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/man-shot-by-newton-poli... So of course the circus shows up https://patch.com/massachusetts/newton/newton-residents-protest-police-shooting-others-counterprotest https://patch.com/massachusetts/newton/newton-residents-prot... There were certainly failures that led to this man's death, but all of the failures happened before he picked up the knife and went downstairs to the candy shop. I don't see how protesting the police helps. Also the MSM seems intent on telling me the only acceptable thought is that Bruce Jenner is a proud, strong, beautiful woman. I don't think I want them as the arbiters of reality.
    • dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Also the MSM seems intent on telling me the only acceptable thought is that Bruce Jenner is a proud, strong, beautiful woman This is weird, because while I’ve seen this specific complaint with alight variation in wording enough to think it must be a potent right-wing meme (in the Dawkins replicating unit to of behavior) sense endemic among a certain segment of the right, I've never actually encountered anything in the MSM approximating what it describes, and, despite that segment of thr right’s frequent use of it to paint the media as allies with the Left, also don't find that it describes the Left, either, which while it tends to accept that Caitlyn Jenner is a woman, isn't particularly inclined to agree with any of the other descriptors. (And is, in fact, attacked by a different segment of the Right for that, since Jenner is politically conservative Republican Christian trans woman.)
      • AvocadoPanic 6y ago
        Not so literally. The complaint is that 'Trans' is even a thing, that it seems the push isn't even to just tolerate the crazy but to celebrate it and it's being peddled to kids.
• busymom0 6y ago
  Have you read the actual lawsuits which were filed? You are aware the "60 lawsuits being dismissed" is a lie right? Trump campaign only filed 5 lawsuits. The Georgia lawsuit still hasn't even had a judge assigned even though it was filed on December 4th. The TX lawsuit to the SCOTUS - they refused to even hear it. So how exactly can you say "illegitimate claims been promoted as legitimate"? Thousands of dead people, illegals, underage voters, poll watchers getting kicked out etc and they still want people to believe everything is normal? Here's an entire list of dead voters from Michigan alone and their obituaries: https://justpaste.it/8zt04 https://justpaste.it/8zt04 Can easily be verified here: https://mvic.sos.state.mi.us/Voter/Index/#yourclerk https://mvic.sos.state.mi.us/Voter/Index/#yourclerk -------- EDIT: It seems like HN has banned me from commenting replies to the reply to this comment. They have deleted the evidence now. 1 month ago when I tested this, it worked and it specifically gave me this: CATHERINE,KELLY,1915,48708 Month: April and it worked: Absentee ballot Election date 11/3/2020 Application received 10/6/2020 Ballot sent 10/6/2020 Ballot received 10/13/2020 Here's the obituary: https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/name/catherine-kelly-obituary?pid=182910219 https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/name/catherine-kelly-obitu... It sounds like MI has now purged the data to hide evidence. Here's the data which was even retrieved using a script. https://pastebin.com/XEi5Uy6t https://pastebin.com/XEi5Uy6t I even have saved messages of me showing this to multiple friends of mine. No, the two dead voters you mentioned is firstly NOT from Michigan, it's from Georgia. Also that two dead voters is also wrong. It's thousands in Georgia but the SOS (who is a Trump hater) refused to even give the list of voters. So they expect the public to just take their word without showing the actual voter rolls. "Trust me, everything's fine, nothing to see here, move along".
  • gamblor956 6y ago
    A random check of about a dozen names from the pasted list found that the voter either did not exist, or was no longer registered to vote on account of being dead... There were two people who had obituaries that showed up in the voter rolls...twice. In both cases, a quick lookup in the phone book suggests that two people with the same name (but different initials) live in the state. So, thanks for the example that the Michigan election rolls are correct?
  • jackson1442 6y ago
• jolincost 6y ago
  Pretending illegitimacy