Maybe Trump will not be such a terrible president.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Emily's Cat's Rules for being a decent human being:

• Always try reason and respect first
• Refrain from insulting people whose perspective you're trying to change
• If the behavior of an individual merits a negative response, respond to that specific individual based on their specific actions
• Avoid applying negative stereotypes and prejudice against groups of people

Yet you would have voted for a presidential candidate who has nothing but contempt for these principles, and views them as weakness.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

*Sigh* Once again, there is a difference. Here, let me give you an analogy that you *might* understand, although at this point I'm not sure that your perspective will allow it.

In one case, you would be speaking out against a known terrorist that actually did blow up a van full of schoolchildren. In the other case, you would be speaking out against all people of middle eastern descent, because some of them might be terrorists.

Can you grok that there is a difference there?

The difference is that you are OK with associating with non violent racists.

It is a real shame that Mel Gibson had all those career troubles simply for his opinions about the jews.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

This is also why I've repeatedly said that responding to a specific individual for that person's specific actions/behaviors is fine.

But I don't think it's fine to insult and demean an entire group of people based on a stereotype and assumptions. That's called prejudice.

And I am prejudiced against some groups of people, like members of the American Nazi Party.

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

What future generations?

That is not funny.

Well, OK - it is sort of funny in a grim non-funny kind of way.

[dudalb]

From the way the transision is going, the biggest obstable in the way of Donald being a decent President might be his own incompetence.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by dudalb

From the way the transision is going, the biggest obstable in the way of Donald being a decent President might be his own incompetence.

I'd say the biggest obstacle in the way of Trump being a decent President is their isn't anything decent about him.

[Spindrift]

Originally Posted by dudalb

From the way the transision is going, the biggest obstable in the way of Donald being a decent President might be his own incompetence.

It didn't stop him from getting elected.

The Republicans all want smaller government, if Trump can't fill out the Cabinet and agency positions, it's a no lose situation.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Ok, this raises an interesting (for me) question: what if the assumptions are true? Is it still prejudice? Is it still uncalled for?

If you can provide compelling evidence that the assumption* you're making is true for ALL members of a given grouping of people, I'll nominate your for a nobel prize. Otherwise, yes, that is exactly what prejudice is.

*Excluding group definitions. For example, assuming that "all people who have red hair" have red hair would be leveraging a group definition.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

If you can provide compelling evidence that the assumption* you're making is true for ALL members of a given grouping of people, I'll nominate your for a nobel prize.

I don't think it's necessary that a stereotype be true for ALL members of a group for it to be valid. That's why it's called a stereotype.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

I still don't know how you'd deal with the people we've been talking about. Let me post my point again:

What if their point ISN'T valid? What then? It's been shown several times that merely telling someone that they are wrong, which is the right thing to do in this instance, is seen as amounting to being a jerk. So what is one to do in this scenario? If you ignore the person altogether you're being rude. If you pretend to agree you're dishonest. If you try to educate them you're elitist. If you ridicule their unwillingness to learn and listen then you're a jerk. There's no way to win because the people you're engaging with are irrational. The problem is that you've been trying to discuss with them from a position of reason and facts, which is in a different universe from their position altogether.

I would really like to know how you'd handle someone like this in a way that is not dishonest and doesn't appear to them to be condescending or elitist or otherwise a deal breaker. How do you turn them around to your "side"?

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Emily's Cat's Rules for being a decent human being:

• Always try reason and respect first
• Refrain from insulting people whose perspective you're trying to change
• If the behavior of an individual merits a negative response, respond to that specific individual based on their specific actions
  
• Avoid applying negative stereotypes and prejudice against groups of people

It's right there. Responses to an individual person, based on their specific actions/behaviors, is a matter of opinion. Do what you will - as long as it's specific and individual.

If Rush Limbaugh says some stupid, stupid, dumb things, by all means lay down some scorn on Rush Limbaugh for the things that Rush Limbaugh said. Don't lay down scorn on every person who you think *might* listen to Rush Limbaugh, because of the stupid things that Rush Limbaugh said. They didn't say them, you don't even know if they agree with them.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

It's right there. Responses to an individual person, based on their specific actions/behaviors, is a matter of opinion. Do what you will - as long as it's specific and individual.

Yeah but that's very vague. I've given you a specific scenario and you again give me a non-specific answer.

But despite this the original objection was that the left was being dismissive of people in red states. How does your current solution, which is individual, help with this?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

This is good advice in general, but seems to be poor advice with regard to the recent election. Trump did the exact opposite of every item on your list, yet he won. Clinton followed your advice, with the possible exception of calling racists, sexists, homophobes, etc "deplorable," and she lost.

To be fair, she actually claimed that half of Trumps supporters were racist/sexist/homophobic, and collectively referred to them as "deplorables". She didn't specifically say "racists are deplorable". She said that half of Trump's supporters are "deplorables"...

She outright insulted a quarter of the entire country.

Yes, Trump is a jerk. No, I don't approve of his jerkiness. Him being a jerk and winning, however, doesn't justify you guys being jerks to a whole host of *other* people.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

It's right there. Responses to an individual person, based on their specific actions/behaviors, is a matter of opinion. Do what you will - as long as it's specific and individual.

If Rush Limbaugh says some stupid, stupid, dumb things, by all means lay down some scorn on Rush Limbaugh for the things that Rush Limbaugh said. Don't lay down scorn on every person who you think *might* listen to Rush Limbaugh, because of the stupid things that Rush Limbaugh said. They didn't say them, you don't even know if they agree with them.

I think that, by and large, I agree with this sentiment.

To be sure, it's not politically effective to act thus, but it is indeed what decency requires. Indeed, Emily's Cat's list consists essentially of things we ought to accept as self-proclaimed skeptics. That our president-elect fails to do so is noteworthy, but doesn't dispute her point.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

Yet you would have voted for a presidential candidate who has nothing but contempt for these principles, and views them as weakness.

Nah. I *might* have voted against a candidate that I felt represented a risk to things I value, despite the other guy being a retard. Not really the same thing.

A strategic vote against a candidate might work out the same in the end, but you err in assuming that a person voting against that candidate is at all approving of the other. Both Trump and Hillary represent potential threats to things I value. In my personal estimation, Hillary is more skilled at politics and knows how the political machine operates - she is much more likely to be able to effectuate those risks than I think** Donald is. Therefore, even though Trump has many more on-the-surface risks to things I value, I think** he is less capable of turning those risks into reality. He becomes the lesser risk.



**Caveat: Not really 'think', let's say 'thought'. When I was forming my decision on who I would vote for and weighing the pros and cons, I did not anticipate the overwhelmingly republican house & senate, and I definitely didn't anticipate some of the people that Trump is filling his cabinet with. It's entirely possible that things will go much more sideways for me than I expected. But at the time I was making the decision, the above was my reasoning.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

The difference is that you are OK with associating with non violent racists.

No, I am not. Please stop venting your bile at me.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

I don't think it's necessary that a stereotype be true for ALL members of a group for it to be valid. That's why it's called a stereotype.

Hey great! It's nice to know. So, you know, even though it's not true that ALL practitioners of Islam are terrorists, it's okay if we treat them as such - that's why it's called a stereotype, right?

Just for clarity, all daggers and arguments aside, your post here ends up reading as if you support prejudice, so long as it's prejudice you agree with. I sincerely doubt you feel this way, but that's how I'm reading it at the moment. I'd appreciate some elaboration

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Ok, this raises an interesting (for me) question: what if the assumptions are true? Is it still prejudice? Is it still uncalled for?

To be fair, the odds that the assumptions are true of this or that group who are not defined so that the assumptions follow from the definition are pretty slim. If you have a particular example in mind, we can hear it, but otherwise this is a more or less academic issue, no?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Yeah but that's very vague. I've given you a specific scenario and you again give me a non-specific answer.

What part of this:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

If Rush Limbaugh says some stupid, stupid, dumb things, by all means lay down some scorn on Rush Limbaugh for the things that Rush Limbaugh said. Don't lay down scorn on every person who you think *might* listen to Rush Limbaugh, because of the stupid things that Rush Limbaugh said. They didn't say them, you don't even know if they agree with them.

is too vague for you?

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

But despite this the original objection was that the left was being dismissive of people in red states. How does your current solution, which is individual, help with this?

I'm not looking to *help* people be dismissive of entire states. I'm looking to *stop* people being dismissive of entire states, or entire groups of people for that matter.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

To be fair, she actually claimed that half of Trumps supporters were racist/sexist/homophobic, and collectively referred to them as "deplorables". She didn't specifically say "racists are deplorable". She said that half of Trump's supporters are "deplorables"...

She outright insulted a quarter of the entire country.

And yet the fact remains that the vast majority* of Trump supporters voted for him out of bigotry, or tacitly gave their support to bigotry because they considered said bigotry less deplorable than abortion, welfare, universal healthcare, deficit reduction, globalization, and so on.

*I'm saying vast majority, since I'm allowing for the fact that some of them may have been senile, profoundly ignorant and uninformed, flipping coins, kitchen-sink anarchists, or insane.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Both Trump and Hillary represent potential threats to things I value... In my personal estimation, Hillary is more skilled at politics and knows how the political machine operates - she is much more likely to be able to effectuate those risks than I think** Donald is. Therefore, even though Trump has many more on-the-surface risks to things I value, I think** he is less capable of turning those risks into reality. He becomes the lesser risk.

So basically what you're saying is that his incompetence is an asset.

Did it ever occur to you that while that same incompetence may mean he can't implement policies that you don't like, it will also man that:
- He can't enact policies that you do like
- While his blind stumbling around might keep him from enacting some polices, there will be no such problem issuing executive orders, or picking people for his cabinet that are incompetent, or from making poorly thought out statements that affect U.S. interactions with foreign leaders.

Quote:

**Caveat: Not really 'think', let's say 'thought'. When I was forming my decision on who I would vote for and weighing the pros and cons, I did not anticipate the overwhelmingly republican house & senate

While pre-election polls suggested the Democrats could take the senate, they would have had no chance to take the house. So if your reasoning is that the President should have some checks-and-balances, a president Hillary would have had that anyways.

Quote:

and I definitely didn't anticipate some of the people that Trump is filling his cabinet with.

Why wouldn't you anticipate Trump's poor cabinet choices?

During the election, Trump had people working for him like: Steven Mnuchin (former Goldman Sachs executive), Steve Bannon (an alt-right media darling), Chris Christie (may have been a governor, but he is tainted by bridge-gate), Roger Ailes (who just got into trouble for sexual harassment) and Paula White (a televangilst). Do you really think any of these people are OK, or should be giving advice to anyone?

If you go back further, you will find Donald blaming the failure of his mortgage company on the people he hired to run it. You will also see that his Trump University staff (which Trump claimed he "hand picked") included a child molester and people who had declared bankruptcy.

With such a background of making poor choices in picking people to work for him, why exactly do you think he would suddenly change and become Mr. Enlightened, able to actually make wise decisions in selecting people?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

No, I am not. Please stop venting your bile at me.

You don't like discriminating based on group association even when the it is a personally selected group like being a member of the american nazi party. They really like trump.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Nah. I *might* have voted against a candidate that I felt represented a risk to things I value, despite the other guy being a retard. Not really the same thing.

A strategic vote against a candidate might work out the same in the end, but you err in assuming that a person voting against that candidate is at all approving of the other. Both Trump and Hillary represent potential threats to things I value. In my personal estimation, Hillary is more skilled at politics and knows how the political machine operates - she is much more likely to be able to effectuate those risks than I think** Donald is. Therefore, even though Trump has many more on-the-surface risks to things I value, I think** he is less capable of turning those risks into reality. He becomes the lesser risk.



**Caveat: Not really 'think', let's say 'thought'. When I was forming my decision on who I would vote for and weighing the pros and cons, I did not anticipate the overwhelmingly republican house & senate, and I definitely didn't anticipate some of the people that Trump is filling his cabinet with. It's entirely possible that things will go much more sideways for me than I expected. But at the time I was making the decision, the above was my reasoning.

In several elections, I have found myself wishing I could know the outcome of the congressional contests before deciding for whom to vote for president. If I know that one party will control congress, I often feel safer voting for the opposite party for president.

This year, I was confident that there would not be a Democratic majority in the House, so Hillary was a pretty low risk vote. Donald, on the other hand, was high risk, both due to his inherent instability, and the likelihood that he would have a friendly congress that would go along with his agenda.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Hey great! It's nice to know. So, you know, even though it's not true that ALL practitioners of Islam are terrorists, it's okay if we treat them as such - that's why it's called a stereotype, right?

Or all people who support the IRA or...

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by luchog

And yet the fact remains that the vast majority* of Trump supporters voted for him out of bigotry, or tacitly gave their support to bigotry because they considered said bigotry less deplorable than abortion, welfare, universal healthcare, deficit reduction, globalization, and so on.

She is never going to see that.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

In several elections, I have found myself wishing I could know the outcome of the congressional contests before deciding for whom to vote for president. If I know that one party will control congress, I often feel safer voting for the opposite party for president.

This year, I was confident that there would not be a Democratic majority in the House, so Hillary was a pretty low risk vote. Donald, on the other hand, was high risk, both due to his inherent instability, and the likelihood that he would have a friendly congress that would go along with his agenda.

This year, I didn't think there was a snowball's chance in a summertime hell of Clinton losing the election, so a third party vote seemed completely innocuous. I didn't expect the republican overhaul of congress either.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Quote:

The difference is that you are OK with associating with non violent racists.

No, I am not.

You made an election choice which favored someone who made multiple bigoted remarks during the campaign, who was supported by white supremicist groups, who had an alt-right media darling as an advisor, and who regularly had people at his political rallies that had confederate flags and chants like "Jew-S-A".

Yet you found all that was preferable to Clinton and her policies.

Sounds to me like you're quite comfortable with racists.

Compare that to Mitt Romney, who made it clear very early that he would not support Trump.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Hey great! It's nice to know. So, you know, even though it's not true that ALL practitioners of Islam are terrorists, it's okay if we treat them as such - that's why it's called a stereotype, right?

I can only assume that you knew before you asked that my response would be that it depended on the proportions and other factors, but for some reason you felt it necessary to ask anyway.

Quote:

What part of this:

is too vague for you?

First of all, it doesn't address the people who listen to him at all, so it doesn't answer the question. Second, you probably know that the people who do listen to him will take harsh criticism of him as criticism of them, and it'll be just as if you had insulted them directly. You have, as I said, no way to win.

Quote:

I'm not looking to *help* people be dismissive of entire states. I'm looking to *stop* people being dismissive of entire states, or entire groups of people for that matter.

I meant "help with this situation". It seems to me that you are deliberately interpreting my posts in the most uncharitable way.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

This year, I didn't think there was a snowball's chance in a summertime hell of Clinton losing the election, so a third party vote seemed completely innocuous. I didn't expect the republican overhaul of congress either.

Well they lost the popular vote, but that as always doesn't matter as long as the right areas get over represented.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by luchog

And yet the fact remains that the vast majority* of Trump supporters voted for him out of bigotry, or tacitly gave their support to bigotry because they considered said bigotry less deplorable than abortion, welfare, universal healthcare, deficit reduction, globalization, and so on.

*I'm saying vast majority, since I'm allowing for the fact that some of them may have been senile, profoundly ignorant and uninformed, flipping coins, kitchen-sink anarchists, or insane.

This rhetoric is tiring.

There's more to it than this, yet you consistently boil it up to "Almost all trump voters are either bigots, or they are okay with bigotry". You've completely dehumanized your opponents, and have made them shallow and one-dimensional. The entire approach you use casts them all as caricatures of evil, and completely ignores their actual concerns. It is my opinion that this is largely what has driven them to vote for Trump.

I still maintain that most Trump voters are NOT bigots. I do not believe that half the population is bigoted, or tolerant of bigotry. Clinton's position failed to address the concerns these people have, and the discourse has been focused around insinuating that their concerns don't matter. It's been repeatedly said, both now and prior to the election, that Trump's supporters are all ignorant racist hicks, that they're stupid and bigoted, that they only care about bigoted stupid things, and that they shouldn't be given any consideration. The discourse, both then and now, has doubled-down on vilifying and dismissing half the country.

I do NOT believe that most of his supporters are bigots. I do, however, believe that most of them are frightened of terrorists. They have seen terror attacks successfully enacted against the US, France, and many other parts of the world. They've seen increased hostility toward women in Germany, perpetrated by islamic refugees. Yet when the topic is raised, it is often met with claims of bigotry by those seeking a solution - seeking some way to increase their safety. A real concern for their safety and security is met by cries of bigotry and shouted down into silence.

I do NOT believe that most of his supporters are racists. I do, however, believe that most of them are seeing their jobs moved oversees. They see an increasing population of illegal immigrants who are willing to work under the table for very little money. They view this as a threat to their wellbeing, and a reduction in their own prospects. But instead of discussing possible rational solutions to illegal immigration, they are called racists and are derided and scorned into silence.

I also believe that many of his supporters have witnessed repeated efforts by democratic representatives and senators seeking to enact legislation that curtails their constitutional rights.

I suspect that many of Trump's supporters have nothing at all against gay people, and would happily have equal rights for GLBTQ people. But it's not something that directly affects them. I suspect that many of them are quite supportive of equal rights for minorities and women. But it's not something that directly affects them. It's something they support in principle.

To many people, terrorism, disappearing jobs, and gun rights are things that directly affect them. It hits them personally.

Why do you think it is appropriate to scorn them for failing to sacrifice their own interests in preference to yours?

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

This rhetoric is tiring.

There's more to it than this, yet you consistently boil it up to "Almost all trump voters are either bigots, or they are okay with bigotry".

It's hard to argue against the hilited bit. Trump's rhetoric made the bigotry pretty plain. Whatever else their reasons were for voting for him, they must have at least been okay with the bigotry because there's no denying that it was apparent.

Being okay with bigotry doesn't make you a bigot. But it does mean that accusing something or someone of bigotry isn't an effective argument on its own, because people'd just say "yeah, so?" THAT'S what the left needs to internalize.

[Cat Not Included]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

To be fair, she actually claimed that half of Trumps supporters were racist/sexist/homophobic, and collectively referred to them as "deplorables". She didn't specifically say "racists are deplorable". She said that half of Trump's supporters are "deplorables"...

She outright insulted a quarter of the entire country.

Yes, Trump is a jerk. No, I don't approve of his jerkiness. Him being a jerk and winning, however, doesn't justify you guys being jerks to a whole host of *other* people.

Surely I'm not the only one going pedantically insane here?

1/4 of the country voted for her. She said half his supporters are deplorable. So she insulted 1/8 of the country.

It doesn't make sense to count the un-voting 50%, as they, by definition, were not supporting Trump.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

There's more to it than this, yet you consistently boil it up to "Almost all trump voters are either bigots, or they are okay with bigotry". You've completely dehumanized your opponents, and have made them shallow and one-dimensional.

Trump made bigoted comments. He had widespread support by racists. Therefore, those people were OK with bigotry.

If they were not OK with bigotry, then they would not have voted for Trump.

Remember, this is not some issue like tax rates, or trade deals, where it is possible to recognize the validity of opposing viewpoints even if you don't accept them. Its racism/bigotry. Something that is core to morality. For someone to vote for a bigot would require exceptional circumstances (like their opponent was proposing genocide, which wasn't the case here.)

Quote:

I still maintain that most Trump voters are NOT bigots. I do not believe that half the population is bigoted, or tolerant of bigotry.

Trump didn't get half the population. He got half the population that actually voted (or ~1/4 of the population.) But yea, they were tolerant of bigotry.

Quote:

Clinton's position failed to address the concerns these people have

Trump may have "addressed" their concerns, but he did not propose anything to actually solve those concerns, in any realistic way.

Hillary, on the other hand, had rather detailed policy ideas, things that probably would have benefited many of Trump's supporters. But they were too busy being ignorant and bigoted to actually look at the data.

Quote:

I do NOT believe that most of his supporters are bigots. I do, however, believe that most of them are frightened of terrorists.

And if their belief is irrational, or they choose someone who will likely do a poorer job of addressing terrorism, then they are being ignorant.

Quote:

Yet when the topic is raised, it is often met with claims of bigotry by those seeking a solution - seeking some way to increase their safety. A real concern for their safety and security is met by cries of bigotry and shouted down into silence.

What gets shouted down are proposals like "ban all Muslims". If Trump were proposing things that were actually practical, it wouldn't have been shouted down.

Quote:

I do, however, believe that most of them are seeing their jobs moved oversees.

Most of those jobs would never come back because increased automation makes them irrelevant. Trump claiming "I'll bring those jobs back" (through canceling trade deals) is basically catering to ignorance.

The Hillary campaign addressed job losses. But, such issues like global trade and the economy are rather complex. Is it her fault that people are willing to fall for the easy (but incorrect) answers put forward by Trump?

Quote:

They see an increasing population of illegal immigrants who are willing to work under the table for very little money. They view this as a threat to their wellbeing, and a reduction in their own prospects. But instead of discussing possible rational solutions to illegal immigration, they are called racists and are derided and scorned into silence.

Again, illegal immigration is a complex subject, and any solution is going to have significant economic and social considerations. Trump's simplistic solutions (build a wall) cater to the ignorant. And it was that sort of thing that Trump supporters were pushing for. They weren't chanting "Address illegal immigration in a reasonable way", they were chanting "Build the wall".

Quote:

I also believe that many of his supporters have witnessed repeated efforts by democratic representatives and senators seeking to enact legislation that curtails their constitutional rights.

So their solution is to vote for someone that seeks to curtail even more rights? Like narrowing freedom of speech (Trump wanting to affect libel laws). Like adding stop-and-frisk.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is the legislation that the democratic representatives were passing that were affecting their rights?

Quote:

I suspect that many of Trump's supporters have nothing at all against gay people, and would happily have equal rights for GLBTQ people.

Yet they had no problem voting for a person who had, as his vice candidate, someone who wanted taxpayer money to go to anti-gay 'conversion' therapy.

Quote:

Why do you think it is appropriate to scorn them for failing to sacrifice their own interests in preference to yours?

Two issues:

1) We are not necessarily asking them to sacrifice their own interests... in many cases, we scorn them because they are voting against their own interests. All well and good to say "I'm scared of terrorism", but in that case vote for someone who isn't going to make the problem worse because they have no idea what they're doing. All well and good to say "I lost my job and want to work again", but then don't vote for the guy who makes empty promises that won't help, vote for the candidate who actually has realistic plans

2) IN the few situations where there is a case where a Trump vote was in their own interest, some rationality needs to come into play. Ok, so Clinton wanted background checks for firearms purchases. Is that any more of a problem than Trump bringing back stop-and-frisk? Hopefully even the most ardent (white) gun nut should say "You know what? It may benefit me slightly to get my guns faster, but its not worth the harassment/abuse of minorities that comes with stop-and-frisk"

[dudalb]

I think A number of the "With Many reservatationS" Trump voters were hoping that a lot of what we saw in the campaign was just Trump doing and saying anything to get elected,and that a different Trump would show up after he won.
It is becoming clearer they made a big mistake.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

This rhetoric is tiring.

There's more to it than this, yet you consistently boil it up to "Almost all trump voters are either bigots, or they are okay with bigotry". You've completely dehumanized your opponents, and have made them shallow and one-dimensional.

I'll agree with the one-dimensional comment but I think you're using hyperbole for the "dehumanized" bit. It takes much more than that to treat people as less than humans, and I think the word is abused these days.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

To be fair, she actually claimed that half of Trumps supporters were racist/sexist/homophobic, and collectively referred to them as "deplorables". She didn't specifically say "racists are deplorable". She said that half of Trump's supporters are "deplorables"...

She outright insulted a quarter of the entire country.

Yes, Trump is a jerk. No, I don't approve of his jerkiness. Him being a jerk and winning, however, doesn't justify you guys being jerks to a whole host of *other* people.

I have already addressed this repeatedly, to you, so I wonder why you keep making the same incorrect statement? Half of Trump's supporters are not a quarter of the country. He got 61.3 mlion votes, half of that is 30.7million, or roughly 1/10 of the entire country.

On top of your faulty math, 40% of Trump supporters believe black people are more "lazy" than white people, and almost 50% think black people are more violent, according to a Reuters poll in June. That's about half of his supporters being racist, which makes her statement true without even adding in the homophobes and misogynists and Islamophobes.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Why wouldn't you anticipate Trump's poor cabinet choices?

Clearly a lack of imagination on my part. Like I said - I never imagined that Clinton would lose. It's still a bit like the Twilight Zone.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

You made an election choice which favored someone who made multiple bigoted remarks during the campaign

No, I did not.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Trump made bigoted comments. He had widespread support by racists. Therefore, those people were OK with bigotry.

If they were not OK with bigotry, then they would not have voted for Trump.

This is simplistic and incorrect. It is perfectly possible not to be "OK with bigotry" and still vote for someone you think is a bigot.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

First of all, it doesn't address the people who listen to him at all, so it doesn't answer the question. Second, you probably know that the people who do listen to him will take harsh criticism of him as criticism of them, and it'll be just as if you had insulted them directly. You have, as I said, no way to win.

I don't care if they take it as a criticism of them. Just like I don't care if someone takes my criticism of Walt Disney as a criticism of them. If they attach themselves to your opinion of one specific person, that's on them.

But that's not what's happening here, is it? I don't see that people are taking a criticism of Trump as a criticism of them. I'm seeing a whole lot of active criticism of all of the people who voted for Trump, along with a whole lot of really nasty commentary. Hell, I'm seeing a fair bit of criticism of me personally, transcribing Trump's behaviors on to me, even though I didn't vote for him!

So stop trying to conflate these as if they're the same situation. If you want to lambaste Trump, by all means do - he rightly deserves it in my opinion. If you want to vehemently verbally assassinate specific commentators about what they say of Trump, be my guest. If you want to attack the entirety of "people who didn't vote for Clinton" as being racists and bigots, however, I'm going to oppose you.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

I meant "help with this situation". It seems to me that you are deliberately interpreting my posts in the most uncharitable way.

No, I just have no idea what you're circling around. "Hey people, stop being prejudicial jerks who are painting a huge number of people with a really big and really nasty brush". I don't know what situation you're after here - what situation is it that I'm supposed to be helping?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

I have already addressed this repeatedly, to you, so I wonder why you keep making the same incorrect statement? Half of Trump's supporters are not a quarter of the country. He got 61.3 mlion votes, half of that is 30.7million, or roughly 1/10 of the entire country.

Control for people under 18... so maybe 1/8.

Originally Posted by wareyin

On top of your faulty math, 40% of Trump supporters believe black people are more "lazy" than white people, and almost 50% think black people are more violent, according to a Reuters poll in June. That's about half of his supporters being racist, which makes her statement true without even adding in the homophobes and misogynists and Islamophobes.

I'd like a link to your source please.