3 ms·

You touched on a lot of important things and I will try to respond to all of them without distracting myself. I posit to you that 'people hurting and what not'

You touched on a lot of important things and I will try to respond to all of them without distracting myself. I posit to you that 'people hurting and what not' are not merely think pieces ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillbilly_Elegy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillbilly_Elegy ). I remember driving through PA months before Trump's election and recall seeing some of the sadder signs you can read including "Save us Trump". It is not "triggering the libs"; it is genuine despair of no options other than triggering the libs. It is important to understand where it comes from, if one is to have a hope to counter it in any meaningful way. Just using that slogan is a mental shortcut that undermines our discourse. I do not see that understanding. What I see is more targeted messaged intended to inflame pre-existing passions. I do not see discussion. I see bumper stickers. As for democracy, there is an argument to be made that it relies on educated and engaged populace. I am not the biggest fan, because US has neither and a lot of ways to manipulate public opinion are well understood now. And yet, it is still a better option than benevolent dictator, monarchy or some sort of theocracy. Now, we can quibble over whether US is a democracy, which in itself is a discussion for a couple of pages. I do think you have a point with vaccines, but I want you to consider the question of choice, mandates and so on in regards to government imposing choices upon you. What is the lesser evil here?

jfengel 5y ago
And having elected Trump, what did they get aside from triggering the libs? I see a fair bit of attempts at understanding. Liberals love to write books like "The Righteous Mind" and "What's The Matter With Kansas?", attempting to understand conservatives from a liberal point of view. I can't think of anything comparable on the right. Progressives seem to me desperate to understand and cater to conservatives, and it feels like the only thing conservatives want is to make my life harder. It could very well be that I'm just not listening hard enough. That seems to be the response every time liberals lose elections: "understand harder", because the problem is with me. But I'm starting to think that maybe I do understand: they don't want anything from me except someone to be angry at, and whatever despair they're undergoing is more about the deliberate induction of that despair than anything I actually do.
- nindalf 5y ago
  > Liberals every time liberals lose elections: "understand harder", because the problem is with me. Conservatives every time liberals win elections: "let's make voting harder", because the problem is still with liberals.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  >>And having elected Trump, what did they get aside from triggering the libs? Just top of my head: Well, there is an argument to be made from purely economical perspective, avg. earner did see some improvement. Regardless of whether you think tax cuts were a good idea, Trump tax cuts did have intended effects ( even though they also added to an ever increasing deficit ). He did pull out of JCPOA, which some of his electorate actually wanted for various reasons. I maintain that listening is important. I would argue that understanding is more than important. You want an absolution and an easy answer of 'they are just assholes so I can be an asshole back', but it is not that easy. The people you dismiss have rationale for what they do. And now that you know this, you have no excuse but to act on that knowledge. Or, at least, use it to your advantage.
  - nindalf 5y ago
    > He did pull out of JCPOA, which some of his electorate actually wanted for various reasons How's that worked out for them? People in Appalachia feeling pleased about the pain inflicted on the Iranian people? Or are they pleased that Iran stopped adhering to the deal and have resumed uranium enrichment? Or are they pleased about Iran's expanding influence in the Middle East? It doesn't take much to to give people what they want. Pulling out of the JCPOA took only a couple of days. But it was not a good decision, and the fallout wasn't felt by the people who pushed for it.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
      That is on me. The example here was more intended to show that IAPAC got what it wanted out of Trump presidency. You are correct to point out that people of Appallachia did not get anything of value out of that exchange. Since that is the case, would you accept Keystone Pipeline ( https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/trump-administration-approves-keystone-pipeline-on-u-s-land https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/trump-administration-app... ), which was approved and, arguably, allowed for a lowering of energy cost across US? < It doesn't take much to to give people what they want. I do disagree with that statement. This is the hardest thing in politics.
nindalf 5y ago
> the question of choice, mandates and so on in regards to government imposing choices upon you. The government isn't imposing these requirements arbitrarily, it's your fellow citizens imposing it through the mechanism of government. For example, Big Government will outlaw and penalise littering not for the sake of it, but because that's what citizens want from their democratically elected government. And as a citizen who fully supports restrictions in response to a pandemic - IMO the government can't require you to get vaccinated. But you can't demand to be allowed into nightclubs and cruise ships while unvaccinated. Fair? > And yet, it is still a better option than benevolent dictator, monarchy or some sort of theocracy. I didn't argue against democracy. I argued against putting the population on a pedestal. It's ok to criticise people's beliefs. And it continues to be ok even if those beliefs are held by a large group of people. If a large group of people think that vaccines cause 5G ... I don't think we should coddle them and think about it from their perspective and accommodate their idiocy just because they have plenty of company. Let's create rules so the damage they do is minimized.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  > I didn't argue against democracy. I argued against putting the population on a pedestal. Please note that democracy literally is the rule of the people. You simply cannot state that you are not arguing against democracy and in next breath say that people should not be on its pedestal, because, theoretically, people are its ruling class. If it is a democracy, people are on its pedestal. That is the main weakness of democracy. People, as a whole, are idiots. Your issue appears to be with commonly held beliefs that are not your beliefs. But that is a very different discussion. > And as a citizen who fully supports restrictions in response to a pandemic - IMO the government can't require you to get vaccinated. But you can't demand to be allowed into nightclubs and cruise ships while unvaccinated. Fair? I have zero problem with that statement.
  - nindalf 5y ago
    You've misunderstood and mischaracterised my argument. I'm done.

jfengel 5y ago

And having elected Trump, what did they get aside from triggering the libs? I see a fair bit of attempts at understanding. Liberals love to write books like "The Righteous Mind" and "What's The Matter With Kansas?", attempting to understand conservatives from a liberal point of view. I can't think of anything comparable on the right. Progressives seem to me desperate to understand and cater to conservatives, and it feels like the only thing conservatives want is to make my life harder. It could very well be that I'm just not listening hard enough. That seems to be the response every time liberals lose elections: "understand harder", because the problem is with me. But I'm starting to think that maybe I do understand: they don't want anything from me except someone to be angry at, and whatever despair they're undergoing is more about the deliberate induction of that despair than anything I actually do.

nindalf 5y ago
> Liberals every time liberals lose elections: "understand harder", because the problem is with me. Conservatives every time liberals win elections: "let's make voting harder", because the problem is still with liberals.
A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
>>And having elected Trump, what did they get aside from triggering the libs? Just top of my head: Well, there is an argument to be made from purely economical perspective, avg. earner did see some improvement. Regardless of whether you think tax cuts were a good idea, Trump tax cuts did have intended effects ( even though they also added to an ever increasing deficit ). He did pull out of JCPOA, which some of his electorate actually wanted for various reasons. I maintain that listening is important. I would argue that understanding is more than important. You want an absolution and an easy answer of 'they are just assholes so I can be an asshole back', but it is not that easy. The people you dismiss have rationale for what they do. And now that you know this, you have no excuse but to act on that knowledge. Or, at least, use it to your advantage.
- nindalf 5y ago
  > He did pull out of JCPOA, which some of his electorate actually wanted for various reasons How's that worked out for them? People in Appalachia feeling pleased about the pain inflicted on the Iranian people? Or are they pleased that Iran stopped adhering to the deal and have resumed uranium enrichment? Or are they pleased about Iran's expanding influence in the Middle East? It doesn't take much to to give people what they want. Pulling out of the JCPOA took only a couple of days. But it was not a good decision, and the fallout wasn't felt by the people who pushed for it.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    That is on me. The example here was more intended to show that IAPAC got what it wanted out of Trump presidency. You are correct to point out that people of Appallachia did not get anything of value out of that exchange. Since that is the case, would you accept Keystone Pipeline ( https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/trump-administration-approves-keystone-pipeline-on-u-s-land https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/trump-administration-app... ), which was approved and, arguably, allowed for a lowering of energy cost across US? < It doesn't take much to to give people what they want. I do disagree with that statement. This is the hardest thing in politics.

nindalf 5y ago

> the question of choice, mandates and so on in regards to government imposing choices upon you. The government isn't imposing these requirements arbitrarily, it's your fellow citizens imposing it through the mechanism of government. For example, Big Government will outlaw and penalise littering not for the sake of it, but because that's what citizens want from their democratically elected government. And as a citizen who fully supports restrictions in response to a pandemic - IMO the government can't require you to get vaccinated. But you can't demand to be allowed into nightclubs and cruise ships while unvaccinated. Fair? > And yet, it is still a better option than benevolent dictator, monarchy or some sort of theocracy. I didn't argue against democracy. I argued against putting the population on a pedestal. It's ok to criticise people's beliefs. And it continues to be ok even if those beliefs are held by a large group of people. If a large group of people think that vaccines cause 5G ... I don't think we should coddle them and think about it from their perspective and accommodate their idiocy just because they have plenty of company. Let's create rules so the damage they do is minimized.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
> I didn't argue against democracy. I argued against putting the population on a pedestal. Please note that democracy literally is the rule of the people. You simply cannot state that you are not arguing against democracy and in next breath say that people should not be on its pedestal, because, theoretically, people are its ruling class. If it is a democracy, people are on its pedestal. That is the main weakness of democracy. People, as a whole, are idiots. Your issue appears to be with commonly held beliefs that are not your beliefs. But that is a very different discussion. > And as a citizen who fully supports restrictions in response to a pandemic - IMO the government can't require you to get vaccinated. But you can't demand to be allowed into nightclubs and cruise ships while unvaccinated. Fair? I have zero problem with that statement.
- nindalf 5y ago
  You've misunderstood and mischaracterised my argument. I'm done.