Trump isn't a fascist? Meet advisor Bannon's bestest buddies - Page 4

uke2se · 27th November 2016, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Oystein

There is a problem with this tactic that is almost too obvious to be written out:

What if - as is undeniably the reality in US elections - the third party candidates have not the slightest chance to beat both the racist and the crazy nuke thrower? Then such a "moral" vote does nothing to prevent nuclear war, while the "racist" vote is one vote closer to preventing nuclear war.

Just imagine the nuke candidate was 47% in the latest polls a week before election, the moderately racist candidate was 46%, and all others shared the remaining 7%. And it had been known since the beginning of the campaigns that the candidates are such slime balls.

I know I shouldn't, but I would trust in human self-preservation in such a case.

We are talking about a ridiculous scenario, though. It's kind of like asking a vegan "would you rather starve than eat meat"? Most wouldn't. That doesn't change the fact that they stick to their principles.

Originally Posted by Oystein

One further fact to spoil the "never a racist President" mantra:
Every President so far has been a moderate racist. Yes. I said it. JFK was and LBJ and even BHO.
Every candidate who ever applied for the Presidential ticket has been a moderate racist. And a moderate sexist, ageist, you call it. Unless they were outright racists, of course.
Just depends on what the threshold for "moderate" is

This completely destroys the meaning of "racist" and "sexist". We might as well abolish those words if you're going to cast the net that wide.

phiwum · 27th November 2016, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

There were more than two candidates, and also none of the above or a write in. It is entirely possible for the top two candidates to not meet your threshold - you are not obligated to pick one or the other. False duality is a lack of imagination, and a naïve belief IMHO. You will not decide the election either way as a single vote.

I understand there are third party candidates, but if these candidates are not likely to win, and if your voting in a swing state in a close election, then I think that one ought to vote for the racist if the alternative is genuinely much worse.

We are, of course, talking about very rare circumstances, certainly nothing I've seen in my life. But there must be very few truly deal-breaking attributes (intending to launch a large scale nuclear war seems to be a deal-breaker in every situation I can imagine!).

phiwum · 27th November 2016, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

I honestly think that if we were presented with such a choice, democracy would have failed us, and it would be time for a reset. I stand by my point: racism is a deal breaker.

As LSSBB says above, there are more choices than person A or person B. One such is "Both are poison, I'm going for neither". I realize that's what a lot of people thought about this election. Those people were ill informed, as you guys did have one decent choice. You failed to pick it.

When you say that racism is a deal-breaker, does this apply to every degree of racism? The candidate who enjoys racist jokes? The candidate who has certain racist opinions, but which does not propose policies which are racist in nature?

Or are you speaking only of the candidate whose racism is significantly reflected in his proposed policies?

LSSBB · 27th November 2016, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by phiwum

I understand there are third party candidates, but if these candidates are not likely to win, and if your voting in a swing state in a close election, then I think that one ought to vote for the racist if the alternative is genuinely much worse.

We are, of course, talking about very rare circumstances, certainly nothing I've seen in my life. But there must be very few truly deal-breaking attributes (intending to launch a large scale nuclear war seems to be a deal-breaker in every situation I can imagine!).

Of course they are not likely to win if you think that way - that is what traps people into the false duality.

At the end of the day, did you vote for who best represents you or could fill the role? That is the question. Everything else is second guessing and gaming. That is where your convictions come in. Not sticking to your convictions is called "compromise". Are you willing to compromise on a conviction? That is a choice - not a lack of imagination.

phiwum · 27th November 2016, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

Of course they are not likely to win if you think that way - that is what traps people into the false duality.

At the end of the day, did you vote for who best represents you or could fill the role? That is the question. Everything else is second guessing and gaming. That is where your convictions come in. Not sticking to your convictions is called "compromise". Are you willing to compromise on a conviction? That is a choice - not a lack of imagination.

In our pretend election between a nuke-crazy guy and a moderately racist guy, with whatever noble third party candidates there are, polling low, my personal principle requires that I try to help avoid nuclear war by voting for the moderately racist guy.

Your principles may be different. Given the presumption (that the third party guys are polling very low and have a low probability to win), I hope more people think like me than like you.

LSSBB · 27th November 2016, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by phiwum

In our pretend election between a nuke-crazy guy and a moderately racist guy, with whatever noble third party candidates there are, polling low, my personal principle requires that I try to help avoid nuclear war by voting for the moderately racist guy.

Your principles may be different. Given the presumption (that the third party guys are polling very low and have a low probability to win), I hope more people think like me than like you.

So in your hypothetical world, if the second candidate has poll of 25% and so doesn't have a reasonable chance to win, you would go all in with the top guy? When do you not? This all sounds pretty slippery to me. When would you not vote for either? Or just move to another country or run yourself? When is life only two choices, to be or not to be?

phiwum · 27th November 2016, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

So in your hypothetical world, if the second candidate has poll of 25% and so doesn't have a reasonable chance to win, you would go all in with the top guy? When do you not? This all sounds pretty slippery to me. When would you not vote for either? Or just move to another country or run yourself? When is life only two choices, to be or not to be?

I'm not opposed to third party votes in general.

If candidate A is going to lob nukes, however, and B is moderately racist but otherwise decent, and C through F poll at 2% or lower, while A and B are neck and neck (and if I'm in a swing state), then damned straight I ought to vote for B.

In many elections, voting for a third party candidate is perfectly reasonable, especially if your state "doesn't matter". In some elections, such as this year, I wouldn't vote third party if I was in a swing state, even if I found Hillary fairly odious, just because the prospects of a Trump presidency are disastrous.

Other people choose based on other criteria.

LSSBB · 27th November 2016, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by phiwum

I'm not opposed to third party votes in general.

If candidate A is going to lob nukes, however, and B is moderately racist but otherwise decent, and C through F poll at 2% or lower, while A and B are neck and neck (and if I'm in a swing state), then damned straight I ought to vote for B.

In many elections, voting for a third party candidate is perfectly reasonable, especially if your state "doesn't matter". In some elections, such as this year, I wouldn't vote third party if I was in a swing state, even if I found Hillary fairly odious, just because the prospects of a Trump presidency are disastrous.

Other people choose based on other criteria.

I see, so it looks like you have certain standards, and you make a conscious decision on when to compromise those standards. Is there any standard you would not go past?

If there are standards you would not go past, why is the line you draw any better than someone else's line?

uke2se · 27th November 2016, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by phiwum

When you say that racism is a deal-breaker, does this apply to every degree of racism? The candidate who enjoys racist jokes? The candidate who has certain racist opinions, but which does not propose policies which are racist in nature?

Or are you speaking only of the candidate whose racism is significantly reflected in his proposed policies?

If it - from the candidates words and actions during the campaign and before - can be surmised that he/she is a racist and he/she does not address this to a satisfactory degree, it's a deal breaker for me.

If you are trying to create a mathematical equation for racism being a deal breaker, you should probably stop, cause it's not going to happen.

ETA: I feel the need to keep reminding everyone about this, as these hypotheticals are seriously ridiculous: This election, the choice was between a racist con man and a flawed public servant. There was one rational choice, and America failed.

phiwum · 27th November 2016, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

I see, so it looks like you have certain standards, and you make a conscious decision on when to compromise those standards. Is there any standard you would not go past?

If there are standards you would not go past, why is the line you draw any better than someone else's line?

You fail to understand. It is not unprincipled to choose the racist candidate if the alternative is grossly worse, all things considered. That's not to say that I want a racist in office, but it is not a compromise of my standards to make this choice. It is a consequence of them.

It would be misleading if I claimed to be a utilitarian, since I'm not, broadly speaking. But certainly the outcomes of one's choices matter. I won't live by principles which refuse, no matter what, to include the consideration of what happens when I act accordingly.

As far as why my line is better, well, I don't know that I can convince you. If you really think that the horror of voting for a racist is so bad that you'd prefer to allow the nuke-lobber come to power, then I'm not sure how to convince you otherwise.

As with most arguments of principles, you and I would likely agree on all but the pathological cases, such as the example we've been discussing.

phiwum · 27th November 2016, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by uke2se

If it - from the candidates words and actions during the campaign and before - can be surmised that he/she is a racist and he/she does not address this to a satisfactory degree, it's a deal breaker for me.

If you are trying to create a mathematical equation for racism being a deal breaker, you should probably stop, cause it's not going to happen.

ETA: I feel the need to keep reminding everyone about this, as these hypotheticals are seriously ridiculous: This election, the choice was between a racist con man and a flawed public servant. There was one rational choice, and America failed.

Oh, no doubt, this election, the choice was obvious.

But I am surprised that you would neglect all other considerations and vote against someone who merely likes racist humor, no matter how bad the alternative.

Belz... · 27th November 2016, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by phiwum

It is deceitful because I explained that part in what immediately followed.

And I've addressed that.

Quote:

Look, you're a better poster than that.

I've _always_ done things this way: answer every part of the post I want to address separately while keeping in mind the larger whole.

Quote:

You know better than to quote, "Racism isn't a deal-breaker for me," without quoting what immediately followed which explained that apparently shocking statement.

Ok, tell me what it is about "for reasons that I said in that post and repeated just now. The statement, "I would never vote for a racist," expresses an irrationality, if we take it literally at all." that somehow changes its meaning? In fact you double down, calling people who think it's a deal-breaker "irrational". What have I "dishonestly" cut out, there? You have made more than one accusation against me because of this, so you had better explain how the cut part somehow changes the meaning of the part I _did_ quote.

Quote:

It is hard, but not impossible, to imagine things worse than wanting to murder group X.

Irrelevant. I didn't ask you if there was something worse.

Quote:

So, yes, if you want to consider situations in which a candidate wants to murder some particular group, I would say that even then this is not a deal-breaker, since it is conceivable that the other candidate is worse.

Now who's been dishonest? You are playing with definitions and hypotheticals to appear reasonable while just avoiding the meat of the issue.

Quote:

Honestly, duh. There are few policies which are so bad that they are worse than any other imaginable policy. How is this controversial?

I don't know, but that has nothing to do with what I asked.

Quote:

You tell me: is racism the worst feature imaginable in a candidate?

Once more, with feeling: what does this have to do with anything? No one's saying that racism is the worst thing ever. In fact the point of my hypothetical is that there are worse things still. Where did you get that impression? Are you unaware of what "deal-breaker" means?

Quote:

You made it sound as if I said, "Racism isn't a deal-breaker," without explaining myself, and you regarded it as regrettable. I won't regret this accusation. You quoted me out of context for points.

And now you're down to lying, making up stuff about my intentions. For points, perhaps?

Quote:

You and I have a long and mostly amicable history.

That's about to change if you keep doing this.

phiwum · 27th November 2016, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Once more, with feeling: what does this have to do with anything? No one's saying that racism is the worst thing ever. In fact the point of my hypothetical is that there are worse things still. Where did you get that impression? Are you unaware of what "deal-breaker" means?

Perhaps the issue is a difference in what "deal-breaker" means.

Here's what I mean when I use the term. A feature X is a deal-breaker if there are no circumstances in which I would voluntarily vote for a candidate with that feature.

Hence, there are very few features so heinous that they are deal-breakers.

So, what do you mean when you use the term?

Belz... · 27th November 2016, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by phiwum

Perhaps the issue is a difference in what "deal-breaker" means.

Here's what I mean when I use the term. A feature X is a deal-breaker if there are no circumstances in which I would voluntarily vote for a candidate with that feature.

I'm not discussing this further until you point out how the part of your post that I cut out changes anything about the part I included and responded to. Your accusations of dishonesty, irrationality and posting for "points" need to be supported or retracted.

phiwum · 27th November 2016, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

I'm not discussing this further until you point out how the part of your post that I cut out changes anything about the part I included and responded to. Your accusations of dishonesty, irrationality and posting for "points" need to be supported or retracted.

Sure, I'd be happy to.

I said that racism isn't a deal-breaker for me, and continued to explain why this is not the case. The explanation had to do with low-probability hypothetical situations in which both moral and practical reasons suggest that voting for the racist candidate would be the thing to do.

When you skip the explanation, you make it sound as if I care little about whether a candidate is racist. That is extraordinarily misleading. I am not accepting of racism in national candidates, but I'm not naive enough to think that racism is so heinous that it outweighs literally every other consideration.

There are situations in which the alternative candidate is so bad that one ought to vote for a moderately racist candidate.

Your snippage did not convey any of the nuance of my point.

quadraginta · 27th November 2016, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by phiwum

The only reason that "This voter supports racism" sounds more effective than "This voter voted for a racist candidate" is the inherent ambiguity of the former and the ability to misinterpret as, "This voter wants to benefit racism."

You're own claim that the first statement is more effective is an admission that it's misleading.

I'm not sure that "This voter is willing to sanction and tolerate racism in order to get what they want." is all that much more admirable of a position. But if that's the beach you want to defend then go for it.

LSSBB · 27th November 2016, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by phiwum

You fail to understand. It is not unprincipled to choose the racist candidate if the alternative is grossly worse, all things considered. That's not to say that I want a racist in office, but it is not a compromise of my standards to make this choice. It is a consequence of them.

It would be misleading if I claimed to be a utilitarian, since I'm not, broadly speaking. But certainly the outcomes of one's choices matter. I won't live by principles which refuse, no matter what, to include the consideration of what happens when I act accordingly.

As far as why my line is better, well, I don't know that I can convince you. If you really think that the horror of voting for a racist is so bad that you'd prefer to allow the nuke-lobber come to power, then I'm not sure how to convince you otherwise.

As with most arguments of principles, you and I would likely agree on all but the pathological cases, such as the example we've been discussing.

Your example only makes one bit of difference to the principle, if the voter is assured that his vote is the deciding vote, or pretty close, and there is no other way to express your conscious. At this point, we are not talking about a failure of imagination in the sense of not being able to consider alternatives. We are talking a failure of imagination to generate a realistic situation.

phiwum · 27th November 2016, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by quadraginta

I'm not sure that "This voter is willing to sanction and tolerate racism in order to get what they want." is all that much more admirable of a position. But if that's the beach you want to defend then go for it.

We're only speaking of situations in which the alternative is significantly worse, not for the voter, but for the nation as a whole (according to the best judgment of the voter).

I'm not advocating voting for a racist candidate for purely selfish reasons, but only those very rare situations in which the alternative is worse. What could be controversial about this?

Racism is bad, very bad. Racism in the highest authority figure in the land is significantly worse. But it's not literally the worst trait the President could have. It's up there, but there are worse. (Keep in mind, as well, that there are degrees of racism and I'm not speaking of the most extreme forms.)

phiwum · 27th November 2016, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

Your example only makes one bit of difference to the principle, if the voter is assured that his vote is the deciding vote, or pretty close, and there is no other way to express your conscious. At this point, we are not talking about a failure of imagination in the sense of not being able to consider alternatives. We are talking a failure of imagination to generate a realistic situation.

I've said these are low-probability hypotheticals, but I tell you what.

If Trump was not racist, and if Hillary has some mildly negative opinions about, oh, let's say Brazilians, then I'd still have voted for Hillary. Without shame.

ETA: Well, since I'm in MA, which the Dems always win, I suppose I might've gone third party in that case. But I thought Johnson was flaky and I'm not much for Greens.

Belz... · 27th November 2016, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by phiwum

Sure, I'd be happy to.

I said that racism isn't a deal-breaker for me, and continued to explain why this is not the case.

You know what? You're entirely right. I see now that I confused two posts of yours in our recent exchanges and missed the original nuance. I didn't snip it out of dishonesty, but out of expedience, but I can see why you'd see it that way. I retract my response to that post and every other post since. I sincerely apologise for the increading tone of said posts. However I would prefer if you didn't immediately interpret exchanges as dishonest without further inquiry in the future.

Ok, now on to the other thing you asked:

Quote:

Perhaps the issue is a difference in what "deal-breaker" means.

Here's what I mean when I use the term. A feature X is a deal-breaker if there are no circumstances in which I would voluntarily vote for a candidate with that feature.

Well, of course if we imagine extreme scenarios, even what is usually a deal-breaker will be annulled. I don't think "no circumstances" is quite correct, since as is usual with things human, principles have limits.

So yes, I can say that racism is and should be a deal-breaker, without meaning that there are absolutely no circumstances in which I would hold my nose and vote for the racist.

phiwum · 27th November 2016, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

You know what? You're entirely right. I see now that I confused two posts of yours in our recent exchanges and missed the original nuance. I didn't snip it out of dishonesty, but out of expedience, but I can see why you'd see it that way. I retract my response to that post and every other post since. I sincerely apologise for the increading tone of said posts. However I would prefer if you didn't immediately interpret exchanges as dishonest without further inquiry in the future.

Well, I'm happy to hear it was unintentional and sorry that I leaped to the conclusion otherwise. I knew when I wrote that line that someone might quote it out of context, so I had a hair trigger, I suppose.

Quote:

Ok, now on to the other thing you asked:

Well, of course if we imagine extreme scenarios, even what is usually a deal-breaker will be annulled. I don't think "no circumstances" is quite correct, since as is usual with things human, principles have limits.

So yes, I can say that racism is and should be a deal-breaker, without meaning that there are absolutely no circumstances in which I would hold my nose and vote for the racist.

Then our disagreement is only semantic. My extreme definition ("no circumstances") has the advantage of clarity, but perhaps the disadvantage that there are very few things I'd call a deal-breaker.

You haven't really said what your definition is, but I assume that it's something like: X is a deal-breaker if I would not vote for an X-candidate except in very rare circumstances and where the viable alternatives are worse. But "very rare" (or your term of choice) is pretty vague.

Take away "very rare" from that definition, and we just get the definition of "disliked trait".

Anyway, you and I aren't in real disagreement. Others are saying that they'd vote for the nuke-lobber (or a third party candidate, thereby increasing the odds the nuke-lobber wins) rather than the moderate racist. For myself, I'd vote for "Hillary + very_mild_racism" over "Trump - racism" (read - as minus).

Noztradamus · 27th November 2016, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

And just to make sure there's no room for misinterpretation, they used gratuitous German!

"No one who speaks German could be an evil man."

uke2se · 28th November 2016, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by phiwum

Oh, no doubt, this election, the choice was obvious.

But I am surprised that you would neglect all other considerations and vote against someone who merely likes racist humor, no matter how bad the alternative.

I wouldn't. Haven't you been paying attention? Racism is a deal breaker, but so is a candidate being a murderer or "nuke lobber" (goes without saying). I don't have one deal breaker, but several.

Belz... · 28th November 2016, 04:03 AM

Originally Posted by phiwum

You haven't really said what your definition is, but I assume that it's something like: X is a deal-breaker if I would not vote for an X-candidate except in very rare circumstances and where the viable alternatives are worse. But "very rare" (or your term of choice) is pretty vague.

Of course it is. Stuff that relate to human values and choices usually are. Can't really do anything about that, especially since we're not talking about anything specific in the first place.

phiwum · 28th November 2016, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

I wouldn't. Haven't you been paying attention? Racism is a deal breaker, but so is a candidate being a murderer or "nuke lobber" (goes without saying). I don't have one deal breaker, but several.

Right, but if both candidates have deal-breaking traits, what do you do? Abstain or go third party, right?

NoahFence · 28th November 2016, 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

I wouldn't. Haven't you been paying attention? Racism is a deal breaker, but so is a candidate being a murderer or "nuke lobber" (goes without saying). I don't have one deal breaker, but several.

Nuke lobber? Hillary?

phiwum · 28th November 2016, 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Of course it is. Stuff that relate to human values and choices usually are. Can't really do anything about that, especially since we're not talking about anything specific in the first place.

I suppose the same vagueness occurs on my end, not in the definition of "deal-breaker", but in the measurement of "worse alternative".

thaiboxerken · 28th November 2016, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Nuke lobber? Hillary?

I think he's still talking about Trump.

thaiboxerken · 28th November 2016, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by phiwum

Right, but if both candidates have deal-breaking traits, what do you do? Abstain or go third party, right?

Maybe. But only one candidate had these "deal breakers" this last election.

phiwum · 28th November 2016, 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Nuke lobber? Hillary?

I'm talking about a fanciful hypothetical in which a competent but moderately racist runs against a candidate proposing to use nuclear weapons as soon as he gains office.

phiwum · 28th November 2016, 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Maybe. But only one candidate had these "deal breakers" this last election.

Absolutely agreed. I'm not making an argument to vote for Trump, for God's sake. I'm just talking about whether it's appropriate to call racism (in every degree) a "deal-breaker".

I guess I'm also explaining how Trump voters voted for Trump, despite the racism. They have a ridiculous idea that Clinton is a devious supervillain, looking to enrich herself at the expense of the nation as a whole and that she's even more dangerous than Trump.

uke2se · 28th November 2016, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by phiwum

Right, but if both candidates have deal-breaking traits, what do you do? Abstain or go third party, right?

That or dig a hole in the ground and hide. Or start/join an insurrection.

The Don · 28th November 2016, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by phiwum

I'm talking about a fanciful hypothetical in which a competent but moderately racist runs against a candidate proposing to use nuclear weapons as soon as he gains office.

You may as well talk about a fanciful hypothetical in which one makes a decision to vote for the racist to stop a unicorn from being elected....

I suppose that you must be talking about a limited two party system like the US but even then, which party is fielding the racist and which the General Turgidson fanatic ?

If a party or candidate is actually running for office on a platform of executing a first strike nuclear attack, and that candidate is enjoying sufficient support to warrant tactical voting against them (as opposed to abstaining or spoiling one's ballot) then IMO democracy has failed and instead of pulling at one's beard and worrying about which candidate to choose - we should be asking for friendly powers to seize the reins of government.

Belz... · 28th November 2016, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by phiwum

Right, but if both candidates have deal-breaking traits, what do you do? Abstain or go third party, right?

No, you chop them both into pieces and assemble a new candidate from the best parts. Obviously.

phiwum · 28th November 2016, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

That or dig a hole in the ground and hide. Or start/join an insurrection.

You're right, you mentioned both these options, which I ignored in saying the alternative is to "vote against" the racist. I regard these options as impractical as well -- giving up on the one hand or uselessly resisting on the other.

In any case, sorry I misrepresented your options, so let me rephrase it thus: If it's the nuke-lobber vs. the moderately racist competent, you still would not vote for the racist, even if that increases the odds of the lobber being elected.

Fair enough?

phiwum · 28th November 2016, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

You may as well talk about a fanciful hypothetical in which one makes a decision to vote for the racist to stop a unicorn from being elected....

I suppose that you must be talking about a limited two party system like the US but even then, which party is fielding the racist and which the General Turgidson fanatic ?

If a party or candidate is actually running for office on a platform of executing a first strike nuclear attack, and that candidate is enjoying sufficient support to warrant tactical voting against them (as opposed to abstaining or spoiling one's ballot) then IMO democracy has failed and instead of pulling at one's beard and worrying about which candidate to choose - we should be asking for friendly powers to seize the reins of government.

Consider the following situation.

Take Trump and remove the racism, while leaving the incompetence, egotism, ignorance, short temper and so on. Call him T-minus (Trump minus racism).

On the other side, take a competent person, Hillary, if you'd like, or Obama. In either case, add a mild racism: a personal dislike of a certain race, say. A distrust of Asians, or something. Call this H-plus, for Hillary plus racism, but racism in a weak form, and if you think Hillary is a weak candidate, feel free to imagine a better candidate.

In that case, I'd vote for H-plus over T-minus. And this case isn't so ridiculous, now that Trump has actually won an election. Surely, we can imagine a candidate just as bad as Trump, but without the racist rhetoric. And surely we can imagine a decent candidate with some unfortunately racist view.

So, if you prefer, we may leave behind the fanciful nuke-lobber scenario and talk about H-plus and T-minus. And, in my view, Trump is a dreadful candidate even aside from any racism, and I'd vote for a competent person with mild racist tendencies over Trump.

Is that better?

phiwum · 28th November 2016, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

No, you chop them both into pieces and assemble a new candidate from the best parts. Obviously.

That must be Canadian technology. Not really an American approach to selecting candidates.

We use the primaries to select the candidates palatable only to the most dedicated partisans and then complain about our choices in the general election.

uke2se · 28th November 2016, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by phiwum

You're right, you mentioned both these options, which I ignored in saying the alternative is to "vote against" the racist. I regard these options as impractical as well -- giving up on the one hand or uselessly resisting on the other.

In any case, sorry I misrepresented your options, so let me rephrase it thus: If it's the nuke-lobber vs. the moderately racist competent, you still would not vote for the racist, even if that increases the odds of the lobber being elected.

Fair enough?

Yes, that is correct. In the hypothetical case you describe, I would consider democracy to have failed and would look at what options were available to save the country and democracy itself from the two unqualified candidates. That might be a third-party vote, and it might be armed insurrection. In the latter case, at least I wouldn't be around for the fallout.

uke2se · 28th November 2016, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by phiwum

Consider the following situation.

Take Trump and remove the racism, while leaving the incompetence, egotism, ignorance, short temper and so on. Call him T-minus (Trump minus racism).

On the other side, take a competent person, Hillary, if you'd like, or Obama. In either case, add a mild racism: a personal dislike of a certain race, say. A distrust of Asians, or something. Call this H-plus, for Hillary plus racism, but racism in a weak form, and if you think Hillary is a weak candidate, feel free to imagine a better candidate.

In that case, I'd vote for H-plus over T-minus. And this case isn't so ridiculous, now that Trump has actually won an election. Surely, we can imagine a candidate just as bad as Trump, but without the racist rhetoric. And surely we can imagine a decent candidate with some unfortunately racist view.

So, if you prefer, we may leave behind the fanciful nuke-lobber scenario and talk about H-plus and T-minus. And, in my view, Trump is a dreadful candidate even aside from any racism, and I'd vote for a competent person with mild racist tendencies over Trump.

Is that better?

As I have said a couple of times, it's not as simple as this. Trump has several traits I consider deal-breakers, among them his corruption and his obvious stupidity. In the case you described, I would vote third party.

Belz... · 28th November 2016, 08:02 AM

Maybe the Deal-Breaker is a combination of things.

27th November 2016, 11:43 AM	#121
uke2se Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 14,180	Originally Posted by Oystein There is a problem with this tactic that is almost too obvious to be written out: What if - as is undeniably the reality in US elections - the third party candidates have not the slightest chance to beat both the racist and the crazy nuke thrower? Then such a "moral" vote does nothing to prevent nuclear war, while the "racist" vote is one vote closer to preventing nuclear war. Just imagine the nuke candidate was 47% in the latest polls a week before election, the moderately racist candidate was 46%, and all others shared the remaining 7%. And it had been known since the beginning of the campaigns that the candidates are such slime balls. I know I shouldn't, but I would trust in human self-preservation in such a case. We are talking about a ridiculous scenario, though. It's kind of like asking a vegan "would you rather starve than eat meat"? Most wouldn't. That doesn't change the fact that they stick to their principles. Originally Posted by Oystein One further fact to spoil the "never a racist President" mantra: Every President so far has been a moderate racist. Yes. I said it. JFK was and LBJ and even BHO. Every candidate who ever applied for the Presidential ticket has been a moderate racist. And a moderate sexist, ageist, you call it. Unless they were outright racists, of course. Just depends on what the threshold for "moderate" is This completely destroys the meaning of "racist" and "sexist". We might as well abolish those words if you're going to cast the net that wide.
	__________________ Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

27th November 2016, 01:49 PM	#124
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery Posts: 20,058	Originally Posted by phiwum I understand there are third party candidates, but if these candidates are not likely to win, and if your voting in a swing state in a close election, then I think that one ought to vote for the racist if the alternative is genuinely much worse. We are, of course, talking about very rare circumstances, certainly nothing I've seen in my life. But there must be very few truly deal-breaking attributes (intending to launch a large scale nuclear war seems to be a deal-breaker in every situation I can imagine!). Of course they are not likely to win if you think that way - that is what traps people into the false duality. At the end of the day, did you vote for who best represents you or could fill the role? That is the question. Everything else is second guessing and gaming. That is where your convictions come in. Not sticking to your convictions is called "compromise". Are you willing to compromise on a conviction? That is a choice - not a lack of imagination.
	__________________ "You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

27th November 2016, 02:12 PM	#126
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery Posts: 20,058	Originally Posted by phiwum In our pretend election between a nuke-crazy guy and a moderately racist guy, with whatever noble third party candidates there are, polling low, my personal principle requires that I try to help avoid nuclear war by voting for the moderately racist guy. Your principles may be different. Given the presumption (that the third party guys are polling very low and have a low probability to win), I hope more people think like me than like you. So in your hypothetical world, if the second candidate has poll of 25% and so doesn't have a reasonable chance to win, you would go all in with the top guy? When do you not? This all sounds pretty slippery to me. When would you not vote for either? Or just move to another country or run yourself? When is life only two choices, to be or not to be?
	__________________ "You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

27th November 2016, 03:30 PM	#128
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery Posts: 20,058	Originally Posted by phiwum I'm not opposed to third party votes in general. If candidate A is going to lob nukes, however, and B is moderately racist but otherwise decent, and C through F poll at 2% or lower, while A and B are neck and neck (and if I'm in a swing state), then damned straight I ought to vote for B. In many elections, voting for a third party candidate is perfectly reasonable, especially if your state "doesn't matter". In some elections, such as this year, I wouldn't vote third party if I was in a swing state, even if I found Hillary fairly odious, just because the prospects of a Trump presidency are disastrous. Other people choose based on other criteria. I see, so it looks like you have certain standards, and you make a conscious decision on when to compromise those standards. Is there any standard you would not go past? If there are standards you would not go past, why is the line you draw any better than someone else's line?
	__________________ "You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

27th November 2016, 03:41 PM	#129
uke2se Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 14,180	Originally Posted by phiwum When you say that racism is a deal-breaker, does this apply to every degree of racism? The candidate who enjoys racist jokes? The candidate who has certain racist opinions, but which does not propose policies which are racist in nature? Or are you speaking only of the candidate whose racism is significantly reflected in his proposed policies? If it - from the candidates words and actions during the campaign and before - can be surmised that he/she is a racist and he/she does not address this to a satisfactory degree, it's a deal breaker for me. If you are trying to create a mathematical equation for racism being a deal breaker, you should probably stop, cause it's not going to happen. ETA: I feel the need to keep reminding everyone about this, as these hypotheticals are seriously ridiculous: This election, the choice was between a racist con man and a flawed public servant. There was one rational choice, and America failed.
	__________________ Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 Last edited by uke2se; 27th November 2016 at 03:45 PM.

27th November 2016, 11:47 AM	#122
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,718	Originally Posted by LSSBB There were more than two candidates, and also none of the above or a write in. It is entirely possible for the top two candidates to not meet your threshold - you are not obligated to pick one or the other. False duality is a lack of imagination, and a naïve belief IMHO. You will not decide the election either way as a single vote. I understand there are third party candidates, but if these candidates are not likely to win, and if your voting in a swing state in a close election, then I think that one ought to vote for the racist if the alternative is genuinely much worse. We are, of course, talking about very rare circumstances, certainly nothing I've seen in my life. But there must be very few truly deal-breaking attributes (intending to launch a large scale nuclear war seems to be a deal-breaker in every situation I can imagine!).

27th November 2016, 11:49 AM	#123
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,718	Originally Posted by uke2se I honestly think that if we were presented with such a choice, democracy would have failed us, and it would be time for a reset. I stand by my point: racism is a deal breaker. As LSSBB says above, there are more choices than person A or person B. One such is "Both are poison, I'm going for neither". I realize that's what a lot of people thought about this election. Those people were ill informed, as you guys did have one decent choice. You failed to pick it. When you say that racism is a deal-breaker, does this apply to every degree of racism? The candidate who enjoys racist jokes? The candidate who has certain racist opinions, but which does not propose policies which are racist in nature? Or are you speaking only of the candidate whose racism is significantly reflected in his proposed policies?

27th November 2016, 02:04 PM	#125
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,718	Originally Posted by LSSBB Of course they are not likely to win if you think that way - that is what traps people into the false duality. At the end of the day, did you vote for who best represents you or could fill the role? That is the question. Everything else is second guessing and gaming. That is where your convictions come in. Not sticking to your convictions is called "compromise". Are you willing to compromise on a conviction? That is a choice - not a lack of imagination. In our pretend election between a nuke-crazy guy and a moderately racist guy, with whatever noble third party candidates there are, polling low, my personal principle requires that I try to help avoid nuclear war by voting for the moderately racist guy. Your principles may be different. Given the presumption (that the third party guys are polling very low and have a low probability to win), I hope more people think like me than like you.

27th November 2016, 02:34 PM	#127
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,718	Originally Posted by LSSBB So in your hypothetical world, if the second candidate has poll of 25% and so doesn't have a reasonable chance to win, you would go all in with the top guy? When do you not? This all sounds pretty slippery to me. When would you not vote for either? Or just move to another country or run yourself? When is life only two choices, to be or not to be? I'm not opposed to third party votes in general. If candidate A is going to lob nukes, however, and B is moderately racist but otherwise decent, and C through F poll at 2% or lower, while A and B are neck and neck (and if I'm in a swing state), then damned straight I ought to vote for B. In many elections, voting for a third party candidate is perfectly reasonable, especially if your state "doesn't matter". In some elections, such as this year, I wouldn't vote third party if I was in a swing state, even if I found Hillary fairly odious, just because the prospects of a Trump presidency are disastrous. Other people choose based on other criteria.

27th November 2016, 03:51 PM	#130
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,718	Originally Posted by LSSBB I see, so it looks like you have certain standards, and you make a conscious decision on when to compromise those standards. Is there any standard you would not go past? If there are standards you would not go past, why is the line you draw any better than someone else's line? You fail to understand. It is not unprincipled to choose the racist candidate if the alternative is grossly worse, all things considered. That's not to say that I want a racist in office, but it is not a compromise of my standards to make this choice. It is a consequence of them. It would be misleading if I claimed to be a utilitarian, since I'm not, broadly speaking. But certainly the outcomes of one's choices matter. I won't live by principles which refuse, no matter what, to include the consideration of what happens when I act accordingly. As far as why my line is better, well, I don't know that I can convince you. If you really think that the horror of voting for a racist is so bad that you'd prefer to allow the nuke-lobber come to power, then I'm not sure how to convince you otherwise. As with most arguments of principles, you and I would likely agree on all but the pathological cases, such as the example we've been discussing.

27th November 2016, 03:53 PM	#131
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,718	Originally Posted by uke2se If it - from the candidates words and actions during the campaign and before - can be surmised that he/she is a racist and he/she does not address this to a satisfactory degree, it's a deal breaker for me. If you are trying to create a mathematical equation for racism being a deal breaker, you should probably stop, cause it's not going to happen. ETA: I feel the need to keep reminding everyone about this, as these hypotheticals are seriously ridiculous: This election, the choice was between a racist con man and a flawed public servant. There was one rational choice, and America failed. Oh, no doubt, this election, the choice was obvious. But I am surprised that you would neglect all other considerations and vote against someone who merely likes racist humor, no matter how bad the alternative.

27th November 2016, 05:01 PM	#132
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,292	Originally Posted by phiwum It is deceitful because I explained that part in what immediately followed. And I've addressed that. Quote: Look, you're a better poster than that. I've _always_ done things this way: answer every part of the post I want to address separately while keeping in mind the larger whole. Quote: You know better than to quote, "Racism isn't a deal-breaker for me," without quoting what immediately followed which explained that apparently shocking statement. Ok, tell me what it is about "for reasons that I said in that post and repeated just now. The statement, "I would never vote for a racist," expresses an irrationality, if we take it literally at all." that somehow changes its meaning? In fact you double down, calling people who think it's a deal-breaker "irrational". What have I "dishonestly" cut out, there? You have made more than one accusation against me because of this, so you had better explain how the cut part somehow changes the meaning of the part I _did_ quote. Quote: It is hard, but not impossible, to imagine things worse than wanting to murder group X. Irrelevant. I didn't ask you if there was something worse. Quote: So, yes, if you want to consider situations in which a candidate wants to murder some particular group, I would say that even then this is not a deal-breaker, since it is conceivable that the other candidate is worse. Now who's been dishonest? You are playing with definitions and hypotheticals to appear reasonable while just avoiding the meat of the issue. Quote: Honestly, duh. There are few policies which are so bad that they are worse than any other imaginable policy. How is this controversial? I don't know, but that has nothing to do with what I asked. Quote: You tell me: is racism the worst feature imaginable in a candidate? Once more, with feeling: what does this have to do with anything? No one's saying that racism is the worst thing ever. In fact the point of my hypothetical is that there are worse things still. Where did you get that impression? Are you unaware of what "deal-breaker" means? Quote: You made it sound as if I said, "Racism isn't a deal-breaker," without explaining myself, and you regarded it as regrettable. I won't regret this accusation. You quoted me out of context for points. And now you're down to lying, making up stuff about my intentions. For points, perhaps? Quote: You and I have a long and mostly amicable history. That's about to change if you keep doing this.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

27th November 2016, 05:11 PM	#133
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,718	Originally Posted by Argumemnon Once more, with feeling: what does this have to do with anything? No one's saying that racism is the worst thing ever. In fact the point of my hypothetical is that there are worse things still. Where did you get that impression? Are you unaware of what "deal-breaker" means? Perhaps the issue is a difference in what "deal-breaker" means. Here's what I mean when I use the term. A feature X is a deal-breaker if there are no circumstances in which I would voluntarily vote for a candidate with that feature. Hence, there are very few features so heinous that they are deal-breakers. So, what do you mean when you use the term?

27th November 2016, 05:31 PM	#134
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,292	Originally Posted by phiwum Perhaps the issue is a difference in what "deal-breaker" means. Here's what I mean when I use the term. A feature X is a deal-breaker if there are no circumstances in which I would voluntarily vote for a candidate with that feature. I'm not discussing this further until you point out how the part of your post that I cut out changes anything about the part I included and responded to. Your accusations of dishonesty, irrationality and posting for "points" need to be supported or retracted.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

27th November 2016, 06:20 PM	#135
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,718	Originally Posted by Argumemnon I'm not discussing this further until you point out how the part of your post that I cut out changes anything about the part I included and responded to. Your accusations of dishonesty, irrationality and posting for "points" need to be supported or retracted. Sure, I'd be happy to. I said that racism isn't a deal-breaker for me, and continued to explain why this is not the case. The explanation had to do with low-probability hypothetical situations in which both moral and practical reasons suggest that voting for the racist candidate would be the thing to do. When you skip the explanation, you make it sound as if I care little about whether a candidate is racist. That is extraordinarily misleading. I am not accepting of racism in national candidates, but I'm not naive enough to think that racism is so heinous that it outweighs literally every other consideration. There are situations in which the alternative candidate is so bad that one ought to vote for a moderately racist candidate. Your snippage did not convey any of the nuance of my point.

27th November 2016, 06:28 PM	#136
quadraginta Becoming Beth Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of) Posts: 26,166	Originally Posted by phiwum The only reason that "This voter supports racism" sounds more effective than "This voter voted for a racist candidate" is the inherent ambiguity of the former and the ability to misinterpret as, "This voter wants to benefit racism." You're own claim that the first statement is more effective is an admission that it's misleading. I'm not sure that "This voter is willing to sanction and tolerate racism in order to get what they want." is all that much more admirable of a position. But if that's the beach you want to defend then go for it.
	__________________ "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." "Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."

27th November 2016, 06:41 PM	#137
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery Posts: 20,058	Originally Posted by phiwum You fail to understand. It is not unprincipled to choose the racist candidate if the alternative is grossly worse, all things considered. That's not to say that I want a racist in office, but it is not a compromise of my standards to make this choice. It is a consequence of them. It would be misleading if I claimed to be a utilitarian, since I'm not, broadly speaking. But certainly the outcomes of one's choices matter. I won't live by principles which refuse, no matter what, to include the consideration of what happens when I act accordingly. As far as why my line is better, well, I don't know that I can convince you. If you really think that the horror of voting for a racist is so bad that you'd prefer to allow the nuke-lobber come to power, then I'm not sure how to convince you otherwise. As with most arguments of principles, you and I would likely agree on all but the pathological cases, such as the example we've been discussing. Your example only makes one bit of difference to the principle, if the voter is assured that his vote is the deciding vote, or pretty close, and there is no other way to express your conscious. At this point, we are not talking about a failure of imagination in the sense of not being able to consider alternatives. We are talking a failure of imagination to generate a realistic situation.
	__________________ "You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

27th November 2016, 06:49 PM	#138
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,718	Originally Posted by quadraginta I'm not sure that "This voter is willing to sanction and tolerate racism in order to get what they want." is all that much more admirable of a position. But if that's the beach you want to defend then go for it. We're only speaking of situations in which the alternative is significantly worse, not for the voter, but for the nation as a whole (according to the best judgment of the voter). I'm not advocating voting for a racist candidate for purely selfish reasons, but only those very rare situations in which the alternative is worse. What could be controversial about this? Racism is bad, very bad. Racism in the highest authority figure in the land is significantly worse. But it's not literally the worst trait the President could have. It's up there, but there are worse. (Keep in mind, as well, that there are degrees of racism and I'm not speaking of the most extreme forms.)

27th November 2016, 06:52 PM	#139
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,718	Originally Posted by LSSBB Your example only makes one bit of difference to the principle, if the voter is assured that his vote is the deciding vote, or pretty close, and there is no other way to express your conscious. At this point, we are not talking about a failure of imagination in the sense of not being able to consider alternatives. We are talking a failure of imagination to generate a realistic situation. I've said these are low-probability hypotheticals, but I tell you what. If Trump was not racist, and if Hillary has some mildly negative opinions about, oh, let's say Brazilians, then I'd still have voted for Hillary. Without shame. ETA: Well, since I'm in MA, which the Dems always win, I suppose I might've gone third party in that case. But I thought Johnson was flaky and I'm not much for Greens.
	Last edited by phiwum; 27th November 2016 at 06:53 PM.

27th November 2016, 07:10 PM	#140
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,292	Originally Posted by phiwum Sure, I'd be happy to. I said that racism isn't a deal-breaker for me, and continued to explain why this is not the case. You know what? You're entirely right. I see now that I confused two posts of yours in our recent exchanges and missed the original nuance. I didn't snip it out of dishonesty, but out of expedience, but I can see why you'd see it that way. I retract my response to that post and every other post since. I sincerely apologise for the increading tone of said posts. However I would prefer if you didn't immediately interpret exchanges as dishonest without further inquiry in the future. Ok, now on to the other thing you asked: Quote: Perhaps the issue is a difference in what "deal-breaker" means. Here's what I mean when I use the term. A feature X is a deal-breaker if there are no circumstances in which I would voluntarily vote for a candidate with that feature. Well, of course if we imagine extreme scenarios, even what is usually a deal-breaker will be annulled. I don't think "no circumstances" is quite correct, since as is usual with things human, principles have limits. So yes, I can say that racism is and should be a deal-breaker, without meaning that there are absolutely no circumstances in which I would hold my nose and vote for the racist.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

27th November 2016, 08:10 PM	#141
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,718	Originally Posted by Argumemnon You know what? You're entirely right. I see now that I confused two posts of yours in our recent exchanges and missed the original nuance. I didn't snip it out of dishonesty, but out of expedience, but I can see why you'd see it that way. I retract my response to that post and every other post since. I sincerely apologise for the increading tone of said posts. However I would prefer if you didn't immediately interpret exchanges as dishonest without further inquiry in the future. Well, I'm happy to hear it was unintentional and sorry that I leaped to the conclusion otherwise. I knew when I wrote that line that someone might quote it out of context, so I had a hair trigger, I suppose. Quote: Ok, now on to the other thing you asked: Well, of course if we imagine extreme scenarios, even what is usually a deal-breaker will be annulled. I don't think "no circumstances" is quite correct, since as is usual with things human, principles have limits. So yes, I can say that racism is and should be a deal-breaker, without meaning that there are absolutely no circumstances in which I would hold my nose and vote for the racist. Then our disagreement is only semantic. My extreme definition ("no circumstances") has the advantage of clarity, but perhaps the disadvantage that there are very few things I'd call a deal-breaker. You haven't really said what your definition is, but I assume that it's something like: X is a deal-breaker if I would not vote for an X-candidate except in very rare circumstances and where the viable alternatives are worse. But "very rare" (or your term of choice) is pretty vague. Take away "very rare" from that definition, and we just get the definition of "disliked trait". Anyway, you and I aren't in real disagreement. Others are saying that they'd vote for the nuke-lobber (or a third party candidate, thereby increasing the odds the nuke-lobber wins) rather than the moderate racist. For myself, I'd vote for "Hillary + very_mild_racism" over "Trump - racism" (read - as minus).

27th November 2016, 08:13 PM	#142
Noztradamus Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 4,680	Originally Posted by Argumemnon And just to make sure there's no room for misinterpretation, they used gratuitous German! "No one who speaks German could be an evil man."
Noztradamus Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 4,680	__________________ The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.

28th November 2016, 01:06 AM	#143
uke2se Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 14,180	Originally Posted by phiwum Oh, no doubt, this election, the choice was obvious. But I am surprised that you would neglect all other considerations and vote against someone who merely likes racist humor, no matter how bad the alternative. I wouldn't. Haven't you been paying attention? Racism is a deal breaker, but so is a candidate being a murderer or "nuke lobber" (goes without saying). I don't have one deal breaker, but several.
	__________________ Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

28th November 2016, 04:03 AM	#144
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,292	Originally Posted by phiwum You haven't really said what your definition is, but I assume that it's something like: X is a deal-breaker if I would not vote for an X-candidate except in very rare circumstances and where the viable alternatives are worse. But "very rare" (or your term of choice) is pretty vague. Of course it is. Stuff that relate to human values and choices usually are. Can't really do anything about that, especially since we're not talking about anything specific in the first place.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

28th November 2016, 06:36 AM	#145
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,718	Originally Posted by uke2se I wouldn't. Haven't you been paying attention? Racism is a deal breaker, but so is a candidate being a murderer or "nuke lobber" (goes without saying). I don't have one deal breaker, but several. Right, but if both candidates have deal-breaking traits, what do you do? Abstain or go third party, right?

28th November 2016, 06:38 AM	#146
NoahFence Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 22,131	Originally Posted by uke2se I wouldn't. Haven't you been paying attention? Racism is a deal breaker, but so is a candidate being a murderer or "nuke lobber" (goes without saying). I don't have one deal breaker, but several. Nuke lobber? Hillary?

28th November 2016, 06:38 AM	#147
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,718	Originally Posted by Argumemnon Of course it is. Stuff that relate to human values and choices usually are. Can't really do anything about that, especially since we're not talking about anything specific in the first place. I suppose the same vagueness occurs on my end, not in the definition of "deal-breaker", but in the measurement of "worse alternative".

28th November 2016, 06:42 AM	#148
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 31,706	Originally Posted by NoahFence Nuke lobber? Hillary? I think he's still talking about Trump.
	__________________ 1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.

28th November 2016, 06:44 AM	#149
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 31,706	Originally Posted by phiwum Right, but if both candidates have deal-breaking traits, what do you do? Abstain or go third party, right? Maybe. But only one candidate had these "deal breakers" this last election.
	__________________ 1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.

28th November 2016, 06:56 AM	#150
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,718	Originally Posted by NoahFence Nuke lobber? Hillary? I'm talking about a fanciful hypothetical in which a competent but moderately racist runs against a candidate proposing to use nuclear weapons as soon as he gains office.

28th November 2016, 06:59 AM	#151
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,718	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Maybe. But only one candidate had these "deal breakers" this last election. Absolutely agreed. I'm not making an argument to vote for Trump, for God's sake. I'm just talking about whether it's appropriate to call racism (in every degree) a "deal-breaker". I guess I'm also explaining how Trump voters voted for Trump, despite the racism. They have a ridiculous idea that Clinton is a devious supervillain, looking to enrich herself at the expense of the nation as a whole and that she's even more dangerous than Trump.

28th November 2016, 07:00 AM	#152
uke2se Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 14,180	Originally Posted by phiwum Right, but if both candidates have deal-breaking traits, what do you do? Abstain or go third party, right? That or dig a hole in the ground and hide. Or start/join an insurrection.
	__________________ Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

28th November 2016, 07:13 AM	#153
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 31,328	Originally Posted by phiwum I'm talking about a fanciful hypothetical in which a competent but moderately racist runs against a candidate proposing to use nuclear weapons as soon as he gains office. You may as well talk about a fanciful hypothetical in which one makes a decision to vote for the racist to stop a unicorn from being elected.... I suppose that you must be talking about a limited two party system like the US but even then, which party is fielding the racist and which the General Turgidson fanatic ? If a party or candidate is actually running for office on a platform of executing a first strike nuclear attack, and that candidate is enjoying sufficient support to warrant tactical voting against them (as opposed to abstaining or spoiling one's ballot) then IMO democracy has failed and instead of pulling at one's beard and worrying about which candidate to choose - we should be asking for friendly powers to seize the reins of government.

28th November 2016, 07:22 AM	#154
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,292	Originally Posted by phiwum Right, but if both candidates have deal-breaking traits, what do you do? Abstain or go third party, right? No, you chop them both into pieces and assemble a new candidate from the best parts. Obviously.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

28th November 2016, 07:43 AM	#155
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,718	Originally Posted by uke2se That or dig a hole in the ground and hide. Or start/join an insurrection. You're right, you mentioned both these options, which I ignored in saying the alternative is to "vote against" the racist. I regard these options as impractical as well -- giving up on the one hand or uselessly resisting on the other. In any case, sorry I misrepresented your options, so let me rephrase it thus: If it's the nuke-lobber vs. the moderately racist competent, you still would not vote for the racist, even if that increases the odds of the lobber being elected. Fair enough?