Political Prediction Thread

In fairness to Boots, he has never been anything but upfront and clear-eyed about this nuance of his positions, so he deserves credit for being more introspective than most of us. Another thing is that I suspect that if it came to a martial-law, shooting, blood-running-in-the-streets scenario... he'd immediately have a lot more skin in the game than most.
Nah, I really wouldn't - I'm a lily-white grad student in a college town, totally unfit physically for anything like that. If that happened, I hope I would try to help as many people as possible, but I might just end up cowering in my apartment. I have no idea how I'd respond, really, and I won't know unless that happens. I'll say some stuff about myself though.

I did grow up in a small town in SE Indiana and have some idea of what it's like to live in rural America. It's a pretty depressing place, and it keeps getting worse every time I visit it. I was just there a few months ago, and it's pretty bad. For instance, there's a town about 20 miles away from it where a news-making HIV epidemic broke out because of IV opioid abuse and needle-sharing. At least 190 people out of a population of 4000 were infected. The county where that town is located used to vote disproportionately Democrat; Obama lost it by only 2 percentage points (and won the state) in 2008. Needless to say, Trump won by more than a 2-1 margin. The rates of suicide and drug overdose for non-college-educated white people nationwide have increased rapidly from the late 1990s on, and I know exactly who Trump was speaking to when he kept claiming that the country is in decline.

And yet, I was an upper middle class kid in my hometown; there's a tiny liberal arts college there that my father was a professor at, and the classism among the college professors and their families was the worst I have ever seen in my life. We would constantly mock the people around us in terms that would be clearly recognized as bigotry if they had a different skin color, barely even keeping our voices down in public. I was actually treated fairly well by my peers; although we were pretty bad with the classism, we weren't quite as bad as most other faculty families. The resentment between working-class white people and the educated elite is deep, and it's just a straightforward case of class warfare. When the educated class all backed one candidate who wasn't even good at sounding sincere when she really was, and the other guy is running on a campaign of sticking it to the educated insiders along with Muslims and illegal immigrants, the choice that people in that area were going to make was clear.

As for what I said up there, I always just try to be brutally honest with myself, and then share what I find with other people without holding back the dark side of it. Overall, I think we're going to need to deal more with how actual people work than with some ideal of the way society should be. We should definitely have those ideals, but everything needs to be grounded in tactics that move real people in the direction we would like them to go. To give one example, working-class white people really get angry when someone clearly more privileged than them talks to them about white privilege. That doesn't mean that white privilege isn't real, but a party that is associated with people who are often lecturing about it may well lose more working-class white voters than they would gain in increased turnout. So it could be a tactical mistake, no matter how valid the actual message is. Making enough tactical mistakes can lead to outcomes like President Trump.

@Lexicus - of course you're right that it's because I won't be on the wrong side of the barbed wire. That's why I said that it was a matter of white privilege that I would vote that way. But the flip side of this is voting for some sort of Randroid or extremist neoliberal or something, who will also hurt people (as you say, the results of that would be functionally racist even if they don't say anything racist on its face). It's a moral tradeoff.
 
Ok, but simpler than say... "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists (or "Their rapists" depending on whether you want to make an irrelevant distinction or not) . And some, I assume, are good people.”

Is my take on "political opinions and social pressure" more "simplistic" than that? If yes, then fine, we can agree to disagree. If no then, I offer that trying to address simple falsehoods with complex rebuttals is often ineffective... ask Hillary. Yes exactly... of a lot more than just Big R "racism".
That's completely missing the point. What is simplistic is to consider that people fall neatly into two sides.
Someone can perfectly vote for X because said X has a particular opinion on a particular subject which is dear to the voter, without the voter necessarily agreeing with everything else.
 
Bootstoots said:
@Lexicus - of course you're right that it's because I won't be on the wrong side of the barbed wire. That's why I said that it was a matter of white privilege that I would vote that way. But the flip side of this is voting for some sort of Randroid or extremist neoliberal or something, who will also hurt people (as you say, the results of that would be functionally racist even if they don't say anything racist on its face). It's a moral tradeoff.

It's even more of a false choice because Randroidism is ultimately what got us into the present situation. The Democrats' alternative was Randroid Lite.
 
Of course, because when it comes down to it you won't be on the wrong side of the barbed wire.

Comes down to what, Lex? Race war or some BS idjits have been going on about for decades?
 
I'm not sure, exactly. Something involving barbed wire. I could easily envision the liberal county (tiny blue islands in a vast sea of red) of the country being fenced off and converted into large open-air prisons a la the West Bank or Gaza strip.
 
Lots of types of that.
 
Yes, this would be a nasty kind with strong racial overtones.
 
If you can easily imagine that, rather than painfully attempting to conjure it up then Lex, you really need to take a nice solid roadtrip. It's a super American thing to do.
 
That's completely missing the point. What is simplistic is to consider that people fall neatly into two sides.
Someone can perfectly vote for X because said X has a particular opinion on a particular subject which is dear to the voter, without the voter necessarily agreeing with everything else.
The last sentence of what you quoted, and what I was responding to neatly contradicts the first two sentences of your post. In other words, I think you are missing alot of the points I am making and just zeroing in on one or two sentences. I'm actually wondering if maybe you mistakenly responded to me thinking you were responding to somebody else :confused:
Nah, I really wouldn't - I'm a lily-white grad student in a college town, totally unfit physically for anything like that. If that happened, I hope I would try to help as many people as possible, but I might just end up cowering in my apartment. I have no idea how I'd respond, really, and I won't know unless that happens. I'll say some stuff about myself though.
My bad... I must have misremembered you talking about being ex-military.:blush:
 
Last edited:
To give one example, working-class white people really get angry when someone clearly more privileged than them talks to them about white privilege.
I've noticed that alot of white men also get really irritated when wealthy, successful, powerful women complain about sexism, for undoubtedly similar reasons.
As for what I said up there, I always just try to be brutally honest with myself, and then share what I find with other people without holding back the dark side of it. Overall, I think we're going to need to deal more with how actual people work than with some ideal of the way society should be.
Indeed. Everyone is not the same, and trying to get everyone to be one way, think one way, act one way, will have consequences, resistance, pushback, reaction... whatever you want to call it.
 
@ hobbs- I think I have pretty good record here on not lumping all Trump voters together, (or labeling all Republicans as this-ist or that-ist), so I think you may be projecting on to me a little and missing my point as a result. I've never lived in Appalachia, including "upstate" PA, however, I am a lot more familiar with that part of the country than you seem to think. I'll leave it at that as it wasn't my intention to get into a contest about who is more bluegrassy than who.

I agree that shaming has an impact. I think that in this case it resulted moreso in entrenched positions along with resistance/reaction/grievance more so than being bashful enough to tell the poll guy you were voting for Hillary when you really intended on voting for Trump.
I legit thought you were German when I wrote that. I don't know why I thought that.

There are other possibilities than just saying people voted for Hillary too. They could have said they weren't going to vote or would vote for a third party. Or they could have just ignored pollsters altogether. We've seen what happens when people merely stay entrenched in every other election. None of them were like this one.
 
I've noticed that alot of white men also get really irritated when wealthy, successful, powerful women complain about sexism, for undoubtedly similar reasons.

Indeed. Everyone is not the same, and trying to get everyone to be one way, think one way, act one way, will have consequences, resistance, pushback, reaction... whatever you want to call it.

Yeah - it seems that most of the loudest voices against sexism come from privileged, mostly white women. Of course one reason for this is that powerful people are disproportionately likely to come to others' attention in the first place. Then there's the uncomfortable fact that some men find it humiliating to have to submit to women in the first place, and having to worry about appearing sexist on top of that builds resentment that may come out in unpredictable ways, like voting for a troll for president.

As for how to avoid backlash, it would be a good idea for us to learn how to persuade people in ways that go beyond rational argument so as to convince them that they actually want to go toward the desired belief. As annoying as Scott Adams is, I'm convinced there is something to his claims that Trump is unusually good at persuasion even though his actual words aren't exactly convincing. On the other hand, we have the outrage culture (SJWs vs. anti-SJWs, religious zealots vs. rabid atheists, etc.) where, regardless of the validity of one side's arguments, they make them in such a way as to maximize the negative reaction from the other side. That's the opposite of persuasion, and it's something that needs to be avoided in order to actually convince people.

My bad... I must have misremembered you talking about being ex-military. :blush:
It must be the avatar, which was just the first thing I happened to find on Google Images a few years ago that was relevant to my username. I'd change it except that it probably helps me to get trolls to behave themselves. ;)

Although maybe it is time for an avatar change. I want something both a little silly and a bit menacing at the same time. Maybe a clown would work...
 
Get a picture of Caligula - so-called because he was nick-named "Little Boots" by the soldiers he grew up around.
 
Caligula is a great idea! I loved the infamous less-than-historically-accurate movie and laughed hysterically all thoughout it. Best black comedy/porno ever. I'm not even sure it was intended as a black comedy, which makes it even better. :lol:

Maybe I'll rewatch it and see if I can find any PG-rated images of Malcolm McDowell as Caligula. There's got to be at least one point in that film where nothing against the forum rules is going on.
 
1) As for how to avoid backlash, it would be a good idea for us to learn how to persuade people in ways that go beyond rational argument so as to convince them that they actually want to go toward the desired belief. As annoying as Scott Adams is, I'm convinced there is something to his claims that Trump is unusually good at persuasion even though his actual words aren't exactly convincing. On the other hand, we have the outrage culture (SJWs vs. anti-SJWs, religious zealots vs. rabid atheists, etc.) where, regardless of the validity of one side's arguments, they make them in such a way as to maximize the negative reaction from the other side. That's the opposite of persuasion, and it's something that needs to be avoided in order to actually convince people.

2) Although maybe it is time for an avatar change. I want something both a little silly and a bit menacing at the same time. Maybe a clown would work...

2) I have to imagine there are plenty of pictures of Trump available for downloading.

1) I'm agreed with you about your main point: that the forces of good need more effective rhetoric. I just have something to say about your smaller focus on Trump's persuasive technique, an observation that runs athwart of your implied contrast b/w a) Trump being good at persuasion and b) evoking negative reactions being the opposite of persuasion. And that is this: One of Trump's persuasive techniques is precisely that of using offensiveness effectively. In his notorious comments about lives of African-Americans, I think he was using the Pick-Up Artist's technique of push-pulling (or whatever it's called, something like that), where you combine an insult with a compliment in order to first stir up an emotional reaction, then the PUA channels that emotional reaction in the direction he wants. Offensiveness in itself is ineffective in just the way you say, but Trump "so offends to make offense a skill"
 
That's a good point. There are definitely ways to use offensiveness effectively, but it's a subtle art. Just getting people to move beyond outrage culture is hard enough, although maybe there are ways to channel the anger into the sort of black magic that persuades people.
 
It must be the avatar, which was just the first thing I happened to find on Google Images a few years ago that was relevant to my username. I'd change it except that it probably helps me to get trolls to behave themselves. ;)

Although maybe it is time for an avatar change. I want something both a little silly and a bit menacing at the same time. Maybe a clown would work...
Just for curiosity's sake, I used "Bootstoots" as the keyword on Google Image Search. There are a lot of pictures of boots, a lot of pictures of somewhat-scantily clad paper dolls, some book covers of stories to do with boots, and for some reason I can't fathom, Camikaze's avatar comes up. Your current avatar is nowhere to be found. :crazyeye:

Caligula is a great idea! I loved the infamous less-than-historically-accurate movie and laughed hysterically all thoughout it. Best black comedy/porno ever. I'm not even sure it was intended as a black comedy, which makes it even better. :lol:

Maybe I'll rewatch it and see if I can find any PG-rated images of Malcolm McDowell as Caligula. There's got to be at least one point in that film where nothing against the forum rules is going on.
Try the I, Claudius version. It was bizarre when John Hurt turned up as Doctor 8.5 in the 50th anniversary, as I'm much more familiar with him as Caligula. Something about the voice...
 
Just for curiosity's sake, I used "Bootstoots" as the keyword on Google Image Search. There are a lot of pictures of boots, a lot of pictures of somewhat-scantily clad paper dolls, some book covers of stories to do with boots, and for some reason I can't fathom, Camikaze's avatar comes up. Your current avatar is nowhere to be found. :crazyeye:

When I do that for "arakhor", I turned up a Polish artist on DeviantArt and a bunch of my (many, many) Morrowind screenshots, one of which was even being hosted by a Japanese site talking about the game!
 
When I do that for "arakhor", I turned up a Polish artist on DeviantArt and a bunch of my (many, many) Morrowind screenshots, one of which was even being hosted by a Japanese site talking about the game!
Huh. A google image search of my username turns up nothing that has anything to do with me other than (waaaaay down) one of the lolcat pictures someone posted in one of my birthday threads. To find any images relevant to me higher up, you have to input "Valka D'Ur CivFanatics." My current avatar shows up eventually, along with some more lolpics, some screenshots of Civ II games, and some other stuff.
 
Back
Top Bottom