4 ms·

Millions decided to reward a liar and cheater with the highest office in the country. Twice! At one point, socially attuned people are going to go that way. And

by Arodex 2mo ago

Millions decided to reward a liar and cheater with the highest office in the country. Twice! At one point, socially attuned people are going to go that way. And even if you try to educate your children well, they see in their formative years what society rewards.

iso1631 2mo ago
Compare Nixon to Trump and you see the problem with America,
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
estearum 2mo ago
Yes, but they should be criticized all the while... obviously. In fact, beyond criticizing them, they should be denigrated and made fun of incessantly. Ostracized and reaffirmed as low-status individuals, no matter how much wealth they can acquire through low-status bullshit, they'll never be worthy of respect.
- e40 2mo ago
  Isn’t that how we got here? Making fun and ridiculing the low status, dumb people said “fuck you” with their vote for him, twice.
  - estearum 2mo ago
    No, actually. It's a cute story but there's no evidence of it. We got here by putting two of the most hated people in the country on the ballot against him, twice. One was actively hated for decades by the ultra-powerful evangelical voting bloc and hardly loved even by her own party, then another who couldn't be more closely affiliated with the incumbent during a period of high inflation (globally) that ousted incumbents in virtually every election (globally) that year. These are especially doomed against a completely amoral propaganda machine that's willing to say, in private, that the candidate is "a demonic force", while in public doing everything they can to get him to power (see: Tucker Carlson). Earning legitimate democratic victory against people who are quite literally and explicitly bad-faith actors is very hard. And lastly, Roy Lee, Marc Andreessen and their ilk are nothing like the people who you're referring to. Being a low-status, cheating, amoral loser like Roy Lee is completely distinct from being a lower- or middle-income American worker.
    - jkubicek 2mo ago
      > We got here by putting two of the most hated people in the country on the ballot against him, twice. I hate this victim-blaming. Democrats deserve heaps of criticism for how they handled the last few elections, but Clinton was the most qualified presidential candidate we've had since maybe McCain in 2008? (I didn't vote for McCain, but it would be hard to argue he wasn't qualified). You said yourself where the blame should lie: > These are especially doomed against a completely amoral propaganda machine... Earning legitimate democratic victory against people who are quite literally and explicitly bad-faith actors is very hard.
      - estearum 2mo ago
        There's more to winning elections than being qualified, unfortunately. Blame can be shared among many actors, and generally should be. There's also special value in finding blame in yourself and your own actions where possible, not as a self-flagellation exercise, but because it will reveal if you had levers available you failed to pull for some reason.
      - soraminazuki 1mo ago
        This narrative sounds almost like an alternate universe where Bernie Sanders didn't run for president and wasn't pushed to the sidelines by the party he ran under.
    - triceratops 2mo ago
      > hardly loved even by her own party But why tho? And what does that say about voters who apparently "loved" Trump, a guy who mocked a disabled reporter at a campaign rally, more than her?
      - estearum 2mo ago
        Sexism, anti-establishmentism, anti-plutocratism, racism, anti-elitism, etc. Not sure it matters too much in the sense that it's much easier to change the candidate than the electorate. Yeah, Trump's election says very awful things about all of us, and especially his voters.
  - Arainach 2mo ago
    No. Fearmongering and lying is how we got here. The narrative of "oh if normal people weren't so mean calling out the awful things these voters say and do, they would have behaved otherwise" is simply not true. For them it's a matter of "winning" and "losing" and damn the consequences. Treating them nice doesn't change anything.
  - triceratops 2mo ago
    > Making fun and ridiculing the low status You mean like how Trump mocked a disabled reporter at one of his early campaign rallies?
    - estearum 2mo ago
      No, I don't mean that. Being a cheat is low-status. Being disabled is not. Americans actually agree on this, by and large.
      - triceratops 2mo ago
        Being disabled is a disadvantage in life, just as being low-status is. Whether being disadvantaged is "low status" or not is semantics.
        estearum 2mo ago
        I didn't say to make fun of people who are disadvantaged. I said to make fun of liars and cheaters and ensure that everyone is reaffirmed that lying and cheating is low status.
  - Arodex 2mo ago
    "Look at what you made me do." Has it ever occurred to these low status people that their low status is due to their bad choices in life? No, it's all the fault of others: the black people, the brown people, the weird people...
stillpointlab 2mo ago
Morality advances when those who see they could, decide that they should not. In fact, one might see true morality as requiring a decline of reward. If one abandons their principles as soon as a sufficient reward is offered, then they have no integrity. So let your children see and learn what society rewards AND teach them integrity.
pibaker 2mo ago
I don't understand why you think one single president is responsible for a class of behavior that is likely as old as human civilization. Should we blame Elizabeth Holmes on him too? What about Enron?
- Arodex 2mo ago
  Did Enron had access to nuclear codes? Did Holmes have complete immunity due to her function given by the Supreme Court? Did they try to overthrow the presidential election results ? Were they elected by millions after trying to putsch the government? It is incredible that you think that Trump being president is normal. I didn't say he was responsible for this behavior; I am saying that him and his supporters are responsible for normalizing immoral, unethical, unacceptable behavior.

by Arodex 2mo ago

iso1631 2mo ago

Compare Nixon to Trump and you see the problem with America,

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

estearum 2mo ago

Yes, but they should be criticized all the while... obviously. In fact, beyond criticizing them, they should be denigrated and made fun of incessantly. Ostracized and reaffirmed as low-status individuals, no matter how much wealth they can acquire through low-status bullshit, they'll never be worthy of respect.

e40 2mo ago
Isn’t that how we got here? Making fun and ridiculing the low status, dumb people said “fuck you” with their vote for him, twice.
- estearum 2mo ago
  No, actually. It's a cute story but there's no evidence of it. We got here by putting two of the most hated people in the country on the ballot against him, twice. One was actively hated for decades by the ultra-powerful evangelical voting bloc and hardly loved even by her own party, then another who couldn't be more closely affiliated with the incumbent during a period of high inflation (globally) that ousted incumbents in virtually every election (globally) that year. These are especially doomed against a completely amoral propaganda machine that's willing to say, in private, that the candidate is "a demonic force", while in public doing everything they can to get him to power (see: Tucker Carlson). Earning legitimate democratic victory against people who are quite literally and explicitly bad-faith actors is very hard. And lastly, Roy Lee, Marc Andreessen and their ilk are nothing like the people who you're referring to. Being a low-status, cheating, amoral loser like Roy Lee is completely distinct from being a lower- or middle-income American worker.
  - jkubicek 2mo ago
    > We got here by putting two of the most hated people in the country on the ballot against him, twice. I hate this victim-blaming. Democrats deserve heaps of criticism for how they handled the last few elections, but Clinton was the most qualified presidential candidate we've had since maybe McCain in 2008? (I didn't vote for McCain, but it would be hard to argue he wasn't qualified). You said yourself where the blame should lie: > These are especially doomed against a completely amoral propaganda machine... Earning legitimate democratic victory against people who are quite literally and explicitly bad-faith actors is very hard.
    - estearum 2mo ago
      There's more to winning elections than being qualified, unfortunately. Blame can be shared among many actors, and generally should be. There's also special value in finding blame in yourself and your own actions where possible, not as a self-flagellation exercise, but because it will reveal if you had levers available you failed to pull for some reason.
    - soraminazuki 1mo ago
      This narrative sounds almost like an alternate universe where Bernie Sanders didn't run for president and wasn't pushed to the sidelines by the party he ran under.
  - triceratops 2mo ago
    > hardly loved even by her own party But why tho? And what does that say about voters who apparently "loved" Trump, a guy who mocked a disabled reporter at a campaign rally, more than her?
    - estearum 2mo ago
      Sexism, anti-establishmentism, anti-plutocratism, racism, anti-elitism, etc. Not sure it matters too much in the sense that it's much easier to change the candidate than the electorate. Yeah, Trump's election says very awful things about all of us, and especially his voters.
- Arainach 2mo ago
  No. Fearmongering and lying is how we got here. The narrative of "oh if normal people weren't so mean calling out the awful things these voters say and do, they would have behaved otherwise" is simply not true. For them it's a matter of "winning" and "losing" and damn the consequences. Treating them nice doesn't change anything.
- triceratops 2mo ago
  > Making fun and ridiculing the low status You mean like how Trump mocked a disabled reporter at one of his early campaign rallies?
  - estearum 2mo ago
    No, I don't mean that. Being a cheat is low-status. Being disabled is not. Americans actually agree on this, by and large.
    - triceratops 2mo ago
      Being disabled is a disadvantage in life, just as being low-status is. Whether being disadvantaged is "low status" or not is semantics.
      - estearum 2mo ago
        I didn't say to make fun of people who are disadvantaged. I said to make fun of liars and cheaters and ensure that everyone is reaffirmed that lying and cheating is low status.
- Arodex 2mo ago
  "Look at what you made me do." Has it ever occurred to these low status people that their low status is due to their bad choices in life? No, it's all the fault of others: the black people, the brown people, the weird people...

stillpointlab 2mo ago

Morality advances when those who see they could, decide that they should not. In fact, one might see true morality as requiring a decline of reward. If one abandons their principles as soon as a sufficient reward is offered, then they have no integrity. So let your children see and learn what society rewards AND teach them integrity.

pibaker 2mo ago

I don't understand why you think one single president is responsible for a class of behavior that is likely as old as human civilization. Should we blame Elizabeth Holmes on him too? What about Enron?

Arodex 2mo ago
Did Enron had access to nuclear codes? Did Holmes have complete immunity due to her function given by the Supreme Court? Did they try to overthrow the presidential election results ? Were they elected by millions after trying to putsch the government? It is incredible that you think that Trump being president is normal. I didn't say he was responsible for this behavior; I am saying that him and his supporters are responsible for normalizing immoral, unethical, unacceptable behavior.