Election 2024 Part III: Out with the old!

[Farm Boy]

Nah, you gotta carry it through and tell us what the findings are on whether Man. or Woman. is more racist!

Women are the majority minority, something society wide is mostly woman with some things having man's sheen.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Trump's distressing level of appeal has to do with the dynamic I sketched a while back in a post that was probably tl: two meanings of the word racist.

"Racist" used to mean that you are violent to or hate people of a different racial group.

It has come to mean "perpetuating societal systems that advantage one race and disadvantage another."

Let's say that insisting that a child use a fork is racist under that second definition, as Joshna Maharaj suggests. When you tell the average person that he is racist for insisting that his child eats with a fork, he thinks you are saying that he is violent toward people of a different race. He feels falsely accused and outraged against the accuser.

This polarizing effect is compounded by the information siloing, and polarized outrage-mongering. When someone like Maharaj makes a claim like that, Fox and Newsmax make a feature of it: "can you believe they are calling us racist? for using a fork?!???" For the last week, commentators on each side of the American political spectrum have been telling its side that the opposite side thinks it is garbage. In each case they have a video clip on which to base the claim that that is how the other side thinks of them.

 

[Farm Boy]

Trump's distressing level of appeal has to do with the dynamic I sketched a while back in a post that was probably tl: two meanings of the word racist.

"Racist" used to mean that you are violent to or hate people of a different racial group.

It has come to mean "perpetuating societal systems that advantage one race and disadvantage another."

Let's say that insisting that a child use a fork is racist under that second definition, as Joshna Maharaj suggests. When you tell the average person that he is racist for insisting that his child eats with a fork, he thinks you are saying that he is violent toward people of a different race. He feels falsely accused and outraged against the accuser.

This polarizing effect is compounded by the information siloing, and polarized outrage-mongering. For the last week, commentators on each side has been telling its side that the opposite side thinks it is garbage. In each case they have a video clip on which to base the claim that that is how the other side thinks of them.

So one calls the situation inborn and vast. The other calls you to do something to make the world (more) fair within your grasp. Then, when people act less racist than they are(which they consistently do(because they are trying(cognitive dissonance and all))) the personally useless definition spits in thier face from a (probably) also useless person that is acting in no greater principle than self interest.

 

[Gorbles]

the personally useless definition spits in thier face from a (probably) also useless person that is acting in no greater principle than self interest.

Yes, nobody wants to make the world a better place. It's always ("probably") just self-interest.

It's fun to get all these conservative takes on how to tackle these endemic issues. This isn't to say that people can't have opinions, but when we get to "useless", I think it's just funny. Past the point of helping, really. Can't call racists racists, because it might hurt their feelings. Meanwhile, let's rack up an absolutely (metaphorical) bodycount on any demographic associated with left-of-centre politics. That's consistent.

(also fixing on the cutlery thing as the most disconnected example is a choice that gets to be noted, too - I don't see anyone admonishing the various computing-related articles Yeekim thought he was being smart by providing, because presumably there's a lot more grounding there that can't be handwaved away)

 

[Farm Boy]

15 years under the people preaching it for salary.

You are not going to get louder input than they have, and they spent a lot of effort making my point to me.

 

[Yeekim]

in a post that was probably tl

It was an excellent post.

When you tell the average person that he is racist for insisting that his child eats with a fork, he thinks you are saying that he is violent toward people of a different race. He feels falsely accused and outraged against the accuser.

And those who do understand the distinction are left conflicted - will they continue to be racist? Or will they leave their child at a disadvantage correct historical injustices, reject their privilege and create more equitable world by not teaching their children proper dining etiquette?

 

[Gorbles]

15 years under the people preaching it for salary.

Commodification of culture means people preach a whole lot of things for salary. Got to think beyond the personal for a second, otherwise I wouldn't stop talking about how terrible live devops can be in a professional large-scale software development firm. Given the way this is going, I could probably link it back to the election somehow. There's a lot of leeway to go around.

 

[Farm Boy]

You can flee the conversational point, I won't judge.

Edit: Posting on phone hard. Mongo pawn in game of life.

You can also continue regarding your software firm. I'd read it.(that was supposed to be in there)

 

[Gorbles]

You can flee the conversational point, I won't judge.

Anecdotes aren't points. Everyone has them. I was responding in kind.

Besides, I don't mind either way. Plenty of people avoiding things in the past few pages, I don't bother chasing them. Who knows, maybe it was even my fault for not explaining myself properly. Evidently the career thing didn't land.

EDIT

Personal context blinds us a bit. The goal with these structural things is to at the very least take the person opposite seriously. Akka is failing at that, Yeekim is failing at that. You're attributing good faith to one and the other, but then a third useless party intervenes negatively. The problem there is that doesn't actually invalidate the structural thing. If we were to map this back to trying to parse where the tangent is going, that would mean somebody here would have to be useless, or somebody in the real-world context is being useless. The paper, perhaps, for magnifying a non-story. The person who said "cutlery racist"? I don't really see the point, people say stuff like that every day. The choice to magnify is it why we're talking about it now.

Which is why I said it's interesting nobody is talking about the computer science links. They're a lot more grounded. Harder (if not impossible) to handwave (though I'm sure some would give it a shot). The focus has become on the most inane example, and that's part of why these tangents go like they do. This then gets extrapolated back upstream as it all being inane, vs. most of it being pretty grounded.

 

[Farm Boy]

Anecdotes are points. It's the whole social affair filed down... to a point. Like a literal pokey point, the type that draws blood.

You would need to assume that I've been educated in social studies at a collegiate level and I understand what they're good for and what they're not(huh, would need to go higher than 15 years if we start counting all those, tho).

 

[Gorbles]

Anecdotes are points. It's the whole social affair filed down... to a point. Like a literal pokey point, the type that draws blood.

You would need to assume that I've been educated in social studies at a collegiate level and I understand what they're good for and what they're not(huh, would need to go higher than 15 years if we start counting all those, tho).

We keep bouncing edits past each other, so I'm just going to point up (I just finished mine).

I never studied social studies, or the social sciences, or anything like that. I'm a regular degree holder of a Computer Science degree. The closest we got to that was a mandatory English language module (unpack the assumptions there, eh) and a module on usability and end user experience (as typically engineers don't consider it - which, to be fair, they shouldn't - we have a whole other part of the business whose job it is to consider that).

So I don't think it's a necessary assumption. Unless it's a flex, I guess? I'm trying to operate on the assumption of wanting to talk about something. I'm not assuming a lack of knowledge.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Voted today. Dropped kids off at school then headed to the polling station, so 7:45 or so.

Yes, there is rain (southwest wisconsin), but its a mist like rain.

The local republican headquarters is a block away from the polling station and there was a guy out there holding a trump flag (big flag like you would see in a parade). Pretty sure thats illegal, or if not, its certainly in poor taste. When i left after voting, some guy was arguing with him and pointing at the polling station. 20 minutes later i drove by again and the guy was not there and the flag was leaning up against the building (the other 10+ signs outside the building were still up, like they had been for weeks).

Took me about 5 minutes to vote. I got to move up the main line because they were splitting the main line to three tables based on first letter of last name. My group only had one person in front of me, the other groups had 6+.

Now to delete the stupid voicemails. 3 from 'Donald J Trump', shouldnt get anymore.

 

[Farm Boy]

We keep bouncing edits past each other, so I'm just going to point up (I just finished mine).

I never studied social studies, or the social sciences, or anything like that. I'm a regular degree holder of a Computer Science degree. The closest we got to that was a mandatory English language module (unpack the assumptions there, eh) and a module on usability and end user experience (as typically engineers don't consider it - which, to be fair, they shouldn't - we have a whole other part of the business whose job it is to consider that).

So I don't think it's a necessary assumption. Unless it's a flex, I guess? I'm trying to operate on the assumption of wanting to talk about something. I'm not assuming a lack of knowledge.

Alright. Then I'm focused pretty narrowly on rolling within Gori's dichotomy thought exercise for this exchange.

Since this comes up with you(and it does) I use anecdotes as points, they are, ultimately, the only points there are. So while I am certainly not infallible, I try to use them when I think they serve a useful illustrative... point. I don't go out and look for the stupidest thing somebody with (trait A) has done or said recently(usually). That's what people did when they pointed at the south side of Chicago while I was growing up. It's what certain political and social persuasions do while looking in my direction. For no different reasons than the old reasons.

 

[Gorbles]

Alright. Then I'm focused pretty narrowly on rolling within Gori's dichotomy thought exercise for this exchange.

Since this comes up with you(and it does) I use anecdotes as points, they are, ultimately, the only points there are. So while I am certainly not infallible, I try to use them when I think they serve a useful illustrative... point. I don't go out and look for the stupidest thing somebody with (trait A) has done or said recently(usually). That's what people did when they pointed at the south side of Chicago while I was growing up. It's what certain political and social persuasions do while looking in my direction. For no different reasons than the old reasons.

Fair enough. I phrased it too strictly anyway, I was trying to edit in time and rushing the job.

 

[Lexicus]

There is some underlying grave problem that is not just tied to Trump, and doesn't seem to have been actually addressed.

Couldn't be that the "wokes" have a bit more of a point than you're willing to admit, could it?

I mean, in this thread we have already another poster indulging in a pathetic display of anti-intellectualism rather than seriously entertain ideas that might make him uncomfortable. And you think Trump's appeal is some great mystery? There's no mystery to it at all: Trump gives people permission to not care, and it's easier not to care than to care.

trade policy.

Incidentally, the most important US trade agreement (USMCA) was negotiated by Trump.

 

[Lexicus]

@Gori the Grey your posts on the definitions of 'racism' once again bring to mind this essay, which @Akka should also read.

What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?

Specifically, this bit here:

Or take the notion of "political correctness". It is true that movements of conscience have piled demands onto people faster than the culture can absorb them. That is an unfortunate side-effect of social progress. Conservatism, however, twists language to make the inconvenience of conscience sound like a kind of oppression. The campaign against political correctness is thus a search-and-destroy campaign against all vestiges of conscience in society. The flamboyant nastiness of rhetors such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter represents the destruction of conscience as a type of liberation. They are like cultists, continually egging on their audiences to destroy their own minds by punching through one layer after another of their consciences.

Bear in mind, this essay was written in 2004 but this quote perfectly describes the appeal of Trump at its core.

 

[SemiLazyGamer]

Since we're on the topic, I'm of the mind that everyone is a bigot, but it's how you handle that bigotry and whether you let it define you is whether you are actually a bigot or not.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Wanting someone to win, and thinking someone will win, are different.

Meh... technically, sure, but for the most part its just an excuse for hedging...

You only get to pick ONE (1) Team candidate!

No saying lame things to try and pick both teams candidates so you can claim "See I was right!" or "We won!" or "I'm happy with the result" regardless of who wins... that's lame ... By all means explain/defend your pick but don't hedge, because that's lame

Lame things people say for the Super Bowl US Presidential Election (to try to justify picking both teams candidates):

1. I WANT Team candidate X to win but I THINK Team candidate Y will win = Lame

The more meaningful question is "Who will/did you vote for?" ... Or, in the case of folks who are not US citizens, "Who would you vote for if you were eligible to vote in this election?"

The answer to that is all that really matters. Particularly telling for me, is when people try to dodge the question or say things like "I don't care", "I'm not in the US", "I wouldn't vote", "I wouldn't vote for either major candidate", "I'm writing someone in", etc.

It's not that any of those answers are necessarily wrong... you have the right to vote (or not) any way you choose and you have the right to your own opinion. It's just that you get some significant insight into a person's mentality by how they answer the question of who they would vote for, regardless of how they answer.

I want X to win, but I think Y will win is a clear demonstration of a hedging mentality. It indicates a person who is afraid of being wrong, so they are attempting to pick both candidates so that they can tell themselves and others, that they were "right" regardless of who wins. Often, this hedging occurs subconsciously, as an ego-defense mechanism.

 

[Birdjaguar]

There is really some deep search to do here to understand how it has come to this point.

Right wing talk radio and Fox News followed by social media.

 

[Farm Boy]

I want X to win, but I think Y will win is a clear demonstration of a hedging mentality. It indicates a person who is afraid of being wrong, so they are attempting to pick both candidates so that they can tell themselves and others, that they were "right" regardless of who wins. Often, this hedging occurs subconsciously, as an ego-defense mechanism.

This loses me 100%.

I want to get 300 bushel a year corn at 7 dollars a bushel. I might start to earn what people consider normative. But I don't think it's going to happen. That's not hedging.