[RD] Unhypnotizing Clinton supporters.

In the interests of exorcising this from my brain until...

This brings up another good point.
My computer has pop-up blockers, malware hunters, and anti-virus firewalls.
My brain has none of these things.

Just yesterday I was mindlessly humming a song that I was told was on TV 15 minutes earlier, thought the jingle to American Family Insurance while paying its bill, and was considering paying the childhood nostalgia ransom that is the $60 tiny Nintendo.
Things go straight into our brains with no filter, and there is no way to get rid of them.
Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was Humanitys' cry for help rather than a Jim Carrey film.

I'm not sure if it's possible to not be hypnotized, or to actually forget something other than through the passage of time. (Drinking and drugs don't really work)
And if an emotion attached to a memory, that sucker is in there for eternity.
 
@Mouthwash: if you're going to share a Scott Adams post, why did you pick this one? You should have picked one of the ones from after the election, like this one, where he says the following:

Did the United States Just Elect a Monster? (his bold)

No. Clinton’s team of cognitive scientists and professional persuaders did a terrific job of framing Trump as scary. The illusion will wear off – albeit slowly – as you observe Trump going about the job of President and taking it seriously. You can expect him to adjust his tone and language going forward. You can expect foreign leaders to say they can work with him. You can expect him to focus on unifying an exhausted and nervous country. And you can expect him to succeed in doing so. (He’s persuasive.) Watch as Trump turns to healing. You’re going to be surprised how well he does it. But give it time.

I’ll be doing my persuasive best to help our new president unify the country. I’m not a monster either – just a little bit deplorable when the situation calls for it. And I would ask other Trump supporters to step up and be useful as well. If you helped elect Trump, you have a responsibility to calm the nerves of Clinton supporters who also have their country’s best interests in mind. Let’s all be worthy of our decisions.

[lots of stuff about how this played out like a movie]

I ask Trump supporters not to gloat too much. Be good to your fellow citizens. Be inclusive. Be useful. The country needs you at your best. (My bold)

You have to understand what just happened. We just witnessed the first election of a right-wing populist to the leadership of a country in the Western Bloc since World War II. They had been on the rise for the past several years, and some people were concerned, but they were mostly not taken seriously until Tuesday. A whole bunch of people's worldviews were shown to have serious problems: everyone from SJWs, who are going to have to confront the fact that their way of framing very real problems is divisive and counterproductive, to both neoliberals and neoconservatives who like the political establishment, who are going to have to confront the fact that they really can lose power (they still have a lot, but they are not used to losing elections) and that perhaps they should do more to help regular people. And then there are people, such as immigrants to the US, many of whom are now very afraid. Even if you think Scott Adams is right and Trump will turn out to be a reasonable and competent person who is extremely gifted at appealing to people on a non-rational level, you have to understand that they are scared, and they will have good reason to be given the large increase in racist/bigoted statements and a number of hate crimes that are being widely reported nationwide. I find myself hoping against most of the evidence that Adams is right, for the first time this year.

Basically, if there's anything you can do to be conciliatory, do it. Don't rub people's faces in the outcome. Be as gentle as possible when explaining to people what went wrong with their worldview, and try to reassure them that the future is unlikely to be as bad as they now fear. If not for your friendly neighborhood moderators, do it for Scott Adams. He wants you to.
 
I don't think very many people had halcyon images of her. We did what these days in politics is apparently unthinkable - set aside our misgivings about her to recognize that electing her was for the greater good. Even if the greater good amounted to nothing more than assuring Latino schoolchildren aren't bullied because of their race, and that girls don't have to put up with being grabbed.

You apparently haven't been around the same progressives I have. I can name one person off the top of my head who took that position; the rest either voted for Stein or said stuff along these lines.

(Plenty of Stein and Bernie fans did vote for Hillary, of course. I'm talking about the sort of blog-writing leftists you see online.)

To those who object to the thread title- it's also the title of the blog post I linked to. Maybe it is inflammatory, but you can probably deal with that like adults. I did this to get what I needed to say off my chest, and that's that. I don't care if anybody chooses to discuss what I said.
 
This argument is silly. Dilbert farter implies that Trump "supporters" can be corralled and lead on by simple lies, and that when he changes his policy, they will follow him no matter what.

Not precisely. It's more of an emotional resonance. These people really feel like he's on their side, they he cares about what they want.

I don't think that most of his voters believed what he said for a second. They're just so used to politicians walking back promises that only outlandish ones could ever convince them something would happen. You can go from "banning all Muslims" to "extreme vetting," but you can't go from there to "let's take in 30,000 more refugees."
 
You can even love someone while recognizing they are flawed. You kind of have to if you ever want to have a successful marriage

You have to understand what just happened. We just witnessed the first election of a right-wing populist to the leadership of a country in the Western Bloc since World War II. They had been on the rise for the past several years, and some people were concerned, but they were mostly not taken seriously until Tuesday. A whole bunch of people's worldviews were shown to have serious problems: everyone from SJWs, who are going to have to confront the fact that their way of framing very real problems is divisive and counterproductive, to both neoliberals and neoconservatives who like the political establishment, who are going to have to confront the fact that they really can lose power (they still have a lot, but they are not used to losing elections) and that perhaps they should do more to help regular people. And then there are people, such as immigrants to the US, many of whom are now very afraid. Even if you think Scott Adams is right and Trump will turn out to be a reasonable and competent person who is extremely gifted at appealing to people on a non-rational level, you have to understand that they are scared, and they will have good reason to be given the large increase in racist/bigoted statements and a number of hate crimes that are being widely reported nationwide. I find myself hoping against most of the evidence that Adams is right, for the first time this year.

Basically, if there's anything you can do to be conciliatory, do it. Don't rub people's faces in the outcome. Be as gentle as possible when explaining to people what went wrong with their worldview, and try to reassure them that the future is unlikely to be as bad as they now fear. If not for your friendly neighborhood moderators, do it for Scott Adams. He wants you to.

I'm curious as to why anyone would expect a 70 year old man to be serious, thoughtful, and unifying for the first time in his life just because he happened to get elected president. That seems to me to be a monumentally naive mindset. I would, at best, caution people not to totally dismiss the possibility that Trump could be an OK president, but let's keep in mind that this is someone without even a basic understanding of the laws of the land, or of the fundamental underpinnings of the Republic. Given everything we know about Donald J. Trump, I can't really come up with a single data point to support the conclusion that he can do this job. But I'm willing to be proven wrong, I guess.
 
Yeah, I mean, I'd be happy if Trump came in and told Congress to buckle down on special interests or piss off (same with pursuing infrastructure spending), but his transition team leads me to believe otherwise. It's FULL of Bush and Reagan people and Republican beltway insiders. Obviously, you need some to grease the wheels and work with Congress - I am not saying blow it up - but a standard republican presidency with all the tax cuts and welfare cuts and stuff is pretty bad, and perhaps also, I can't help but feel such a presidency would just leave us even more disillusioned and angry after 4-8 years.
 
Missed this post for some reason, sorry.

@Mouthwash: if you're going to share a Scott Adams post, why did you pick this one? You should have picked one of the ones from after the election, like this one, where he says the following:

That was clever, but it didn't give me the summary I wanted. I just needed a condensed version of the refutations of liberal alarmism.

Even if you think Scott Adams is right and Trump will turn out to be a reasonable and competent person who is extremely gifted at appealing to people on a non-rational level,

I certainly don't. He clearly isn't deranged or racist, but other than his excellent marketing skills I don't see much sign of competence. Of course, that can be a good thing since he won't set store by a faux-intellectual ideology like neoconservatism, which Clinton can certainly be accused of.

I do think it was good he won, since there's at least a chance he might turn out well. Hillary will just be what she is, if not for her than for her lobbyists.

Basically, if there's anything you can do to be conciliatory, do it. Don't rub people's faces in the outcome. Be as gentle as possible when explaining to people what went wrong with their worldview, and try to reassure them that the future is unlikely to be as bad as they now fear. If not for your friendly neighborhood moderators, do it for Scott Adams. He wants you to.

I have Someone-Is-Wrong-On-The-Internet syndrome. It's a struggle. :mischief:
 
Last edited:
You apparently haven't been around the same progressives I have. I can name one person off the top of my head who took that position; the rest either voted for Stein or said stuff along these lines.

(Plenty of Stein and Bernie fans did vote for Hillary, of course. I'm talking about the sort of blog-writing leftists you see online.)

To those who object to the thread title- it's also the title of the blog post I linked to. Maybe it is inflammatory, but you can probably deal with that like adults. I did this to get what I needed to say off my chest, and that's that. I don't care if anybody chooses to discuss what I said.

EDIT: I didn't refresh the page for 45 minutes and missed your latest post. Some of this is out of date, but I'll leave it here anyway. As you'll see, I have a pretty bad case of someone-is-wrong-on-the-internet syndrome too. ;)

As for me, I voted for Bernie. And I didn't like her, but I held my nose and voted for Stein.

Why? I'm not much of an environmentalist or an SJW or a commie. It's mainly because the options presented to me were the following:

1. The person at the exact center of a Democratic establishment that is in serious need of finding out that many of its assumptions are wrong, in ways that are often actively harmful.
2. A person whose behavior makes him appear to be an erratic, sociopathic narcissist, on the ticket of a party that has caused large amounts of damage, including that they spent the past eight years causing as much obstruction as possible. (Please be right, Scott Adams...)
3. A person representing the ideology I followed for about a year and then rejected, forming strong antibodies against it, and whose economic plans are for the most part even worse than choice #2.
4. A person who appears to be a garden-variety idealist hippie type, who courted left-wing fringe nuts by evading any question about antivaxxers or homeopathy, but who generally supports a big program of Keynesian spending on things that are pretty close to what we need, although I would quibble about details.

If this were Australia or somewhere else with instant-runoff voting, I would rank them 4, 1, 3, 2. All are turds, but these are ranked from my most preferred turd down to my least preferred turd.

Now for the tactical considerations. I live in an absolutely safe state, so under the American electoral system, there is no incentive for me to vote 1 over 4 where I live. If I lived in Iowa the way I did in 2008, I would have voted 1 over 4, because people thought it had a nontrivial chance of going for Clinton.

This has been a big week for disproving assumptions, so I'll put a couple of yours in the spotlight. You have shown little understanding the way the leftists on this board think, and the different strands of leftism, so that most of your assumptions you have stated are wrong. For example, the SJWs mostly or entirely voted for Clinton, not Stein. They were really worked up about all of Trump's inflammatory comments, far more so than I was.

People who actually vote for Stein (not just say it, but that almost-1% who actually did it) are quite commonly people like me who don't like any of them but chose the most inoffensive turd. Some hard-left people, and some passionate environmentalists and/or hippies would also be in this group. She is in the environmentalist/hippie group, but she is not a hard-left type such as Cheezy or ReindeerThistle; they would not permit her to answer questions in Ask a Red because she is not a communist of any of the numerous types. And then there are others; her best result in any county actually came from an Indian reservation in North Dakota, where she won over 10%.

People who voted for Bernie were not entirely "real" leftists or college students either - he would never have won any state but Vermont if that were how it played out. That's how the Clinton camp thought it was going to happen, but they were wrong, one of many miscalculations by them. Among the white working class voters who remain in the Democratic Party and do not live in the South, he easily won. Many of that second group of his coalition did not vote, voted for Trump, or voted for a third party (in that order).

You should pay attention to a bunch of different ideologies all over the spectrum, so that you can be right about what they believe. It's actually really interesting if you take the time.
 
American liberals are the products of and the most stalwart defenders of bourgeoisie democracy. You can't break them out of false consciousness. They identify with their false consciousness, they reproduce it and are determined to see other people do the same. They represent the backbone of the American state apparatus - as college-educated technocrats with IT, STEM and "people" skills - and any proposal that fundamentally changes the nature of the American government or how it relates to ordinary people is going to put them out of a job. They know this.
 
Has anyone suggested electric shock treatment for both sides? If it doesn't work, just up the voltage. Sooner or later it will be extremely gratifying if nothing else.
 
I am just hoping that Trump recognizes the great work I have been doing managing my FEMA Camp and permits me to keep collecting Sorosbucks in an effort to continuing the re-education of my charges.
 
Has anyone suggested electric shock treatment for both sides? If it doesn't work, just up the voltage. Sooner or later it will be extremely gratifying if nothing else.

We had a state vote on options for that this year, didn't we?
 
My golly gee I sure hope so FB.
 
We had a state vote on options for that this year, didn't we?
Crap, must have not seen that one. It's probably going to be pretty complicated to get everyone into the right machine and pay for it, and pretty soon it will be decided that it would be better to allocate the money to slush funds and use it to stimulate the critical coke and prostitution industries. I do remember something about allocating infrastructure funding to actual infrastructure on the ballot though. It passed literally everywhere, even among the crucial dead demographic. Then again I'm not sure about the exit polling for them.
 
I think that might have been amended to the pot smoking options Boots. Drugs and hookers amendment.
 
Top Bottom