LetsFlyI don't know why this thread reminded me of this, but it's amusing.
Halo Member
Status
User has no status, yet
Bio
PLEASE NOTICE ME HANK-SENPAI
Most Recent Posts
I don't know why this thread reminded me of this, but it's amusing.
Not that I'm well versed, but the way I see it, the problem with anarchy is a lack of infrastructure. It's unsustainable on the large scale. You can have a town or a city be anarchist, but at the level of a state or country it starts to fall apart - at least in the modern day, with modern requirements such as internet, power grids, decently quick long-distance travel, and so on and so forth.
You need co-operation on a huge scale in order to maintain these things, and that's extremely difficult in an anarchist society. Indeed, that's sort of why we ended up forming democracies in the first place. So unless you're going to massively technologically downgrade your life, anarchy is somewhat untenable.
(As I said, I'm not well-versed in this, so if anyone wants to correct me please do <3)
You need co-operation on a huge scale in order to maintain these things, and that's extremely difficult in an anarchist society. Indeed, that's sort of why we ended up forming democracies in the first place. So unless you're going to massively technologically downgrade your life, anarchy is somewhat untenable.
(As I said, I'm not well-versed in this, so if anyone wants to correct me please do <3)
"Dank memes"
maze.
nah jk, that'd be stupid. mah-z.
nah jk, that'd be stupid. mah-z.
@Vilageidiotx - that was extremely informative. Thank you.
I want to clarify that I don't think it's as simple as people consciously thinking "fuck you guys". The vote isn't out of spite, but it is very much about feeling under-represented and dissatisfied, for reasons you've outlined significantly better than I could. On a subconscious level, people were very much swayed by a desire to disrupt the status quo, regardless of whether the alternative is likely to be worse. People will, after being downtrodden enough, take a really slim hope of improvement with a high chance of things going worse, rather than stick with the guarantee of the same stagnant status quo.
Perhaps the reason I see it this way is because of the narratives in the UK right now - both Scottish independence and Brexit were, in my view, thoroughly driven by these feelings, as was the rise of fiercely right-wing parties throughout Europe in recent years. It's a desire for change, for a shift in the stagnancy of politics for people who feel consistently under-represented, like a rubber band that's been stretched for too long finally snapping in the opposite direction. The problem is just that, because the dissatisfaction and frustration is all dealt with under the surface, subconsciously, that the influence of the rubber band snapping is, too, somewhat subconscious. It sways people towards eccentric, "breath of fresh air" political figures like Trump, or like Nigel Farage in the UK - they become compelling simply because they're different, even if "different" doesn't mean "better." And that attracts votes, it sways opinion every so subtly, but those subtle changes in the way you perceive each word they say propagate through to huge swings in actual votes on the day.
This is what I am saying is "stupid" and like a tantrum. I was being harsh; I completely understand why people are dissatisfied and why they'd be willing to take a chance on anything that feels different from the same old bullshit, anything other than the same old two parties who don't care. It's just that voting for something different just because it's different, even out of desperation, is really, really, really dumb, precisely because "different" =/= "good".
I think this factor is what swayed people towards Trump. After all, between Trump and Hillary, neither is telling an anti-elite story; they're both equally deplorable to the working class. Trump promises to bring back jobs, but anyone who actually believes that he has any real such plans or that he cares about the working class falls into the category of "a fucking moron" as opposed to what I was calling "a protest voter." And Trump's as "wall street"/financial elite as Clinton.
So I think the narrative you outlined was correct - but what caused it to go that way was what I've outlined above. In the end, rational people from that area had little reason to truly believe either Clinton or Trump was going to do anything for them; the thing that made them lean towards Trump is just the fact that he was different, he was from outside the establishment, and people were attracted to that "breath of fresh air" as opposed to another stagnant, lifetime politician-type, even if the fresh air had as much an unmistakable tinge of filthy fuckin' lies as the stagnant pool swarming with flies.
I want to clarify that I don't think it's as simple as people consciously thinking "fuck you guys". The vote isn't out of spite, but it is very much about feeling under-represented and dissatisfied, for reasons you've outlined significantly better than I could. On a subconscious level, people were very much swayed by a desire to disrupt the status quo, regardless of whether the alternative is likely to be worse. People will, after being downtrodden enough, take a really slim hope of improvement with a high chance of things going worse, rather than stick with the guarantee of the same stagnant status quo.
Perhaps the reason I see it this way is because of the narratives in the UK right now - both Scottish independence and Brexit were, in my view, thoroughly driven by these feelings, as was the rise of fiercely right-wing parties throughout Europe in recent years. It's a desire for change, for a shift in the stagnancy of politics for people who feel consistently under-represented, like a rubber band that's been stretched for too long finally snapping in the opposite direction. The problem is just that, because the dissatisfaction and frustration is all dealt with under the surface, subconsciously, that the influence of the rubber band snapping is, too, somewhat subconscious. It sways people towards eccentric, "breath of fresh air" political figures like Trump, or like Nigel Farage in the UK - they become compelling simply because they're different, even if "different" doesn't mean "better." And that attracts votes, it sways opinion every so subtly, but those subtle changes in the way you perceive each word they say propagate through to huge swings in actual votes on the day.
This is what I am saying is "stupid" and like a tantrum. I was being harsh; I completely understand why people are dissatisfied and why they'd be willing to take a chance on anything that feels different from the same old bullshit, anything other than the same old two parties who don't care. It's just that voting for something different just because it's different, even out of desperation, is really, really, really dumb, precisely because "different" =/= "good".
I think this factor is what swayed people towards Trump. After all, between Trump and Hillary, neither is telling an anti-elite story; they're both equally deplorable to the working class. Trump promises to bring back jobs, but anyone who actually believes that he has any real such plans or that he cares about the working class falls into the category of "a fucking moron" as opposed to what I was calling "a protest voter." And Trump's as "wall street"/financial elite as Clinton.
So I think the narrative you outlined was correct - but what caused it to go that way was what I've outlined above. In the end, rational people from that area had little reason to truly believe either Clinton or Trump was going to do anything for them; the thing that made them lean towards Trump is just the fact that he was different, he was from outside the establishment, and people were attracted to that "breath of fresh air" as opposed to another stagnant, lifetime politician-type, even if the fresh air had as much an unmistakable tinge of filthy fuckin' lies as the stagnant pool swarming with flies.
- snip -
Okay, this is gonna be my last response to you, and I'm going to go through everything in excruciating detail because you clearly still either haven't read or haven't understood the majority of what I've said, whether because I am explaining it badly or whatever. If you still don't see my point after this, then I suppose we just don't see eye-to-eye, but I don't see how the view I am trying to communicate is in any way contentious.
You're wrong. Simply put, your opinion is stupid because it infers that people have a right to be 'sick' (what the fuck, who would actually be sick for this, lol) just because they dislike this man. That they have a right to be sick because he represents their country.
"To be sick to your stomach" is a common phrase, meaning "feeling very upset, worried, or angry." Quite obviously, actively throwing up would be somewhat excessive. But considering you think anybody being even upset about this apparently throws the entirety of democracy out the window, this is irrelevant anyway.
Do you know what that is called? Representative democracy. This is how it works. Trump now represents them, because people voted for him. The majority voted for him, in fact, and so he is now the president and therefore the representation of the American people. And yes I do find it entitled that you're asking for people to not say that it's hysterical to be upset about it, because this is the democratic process. You knew this before you voted, the whole process of voting showed a persons participation in the democratic process and I find it very very hard to believe that someone has a right to be sick (disappointed maybe, but should be accepting never the less) just because their preferred candidate didn't win. If it had been the other way around, Trump supporters would've been upset too. But being sick? That's fucking irrational.
I really don't understand your point here - you seem to be implying that it is anti-democratic to feel strongly against the result of any democratic vote. This is flat-out not the case. To accept that Trump received a higher numerical count of votes, as per the democratic voting system of the US, and that because of this Trump is the president of the US... to accept that absolutely does not mean that a person cannot also absolutely fucking hate him, his ideas, and the fact that this means Trump now represents said person.
I'll utilise a different example from my own country - Brexit. I voted to Remain in the EU during the referendum. The majority of voters did not, and voted to Leave. I accept that the verdict of the referendum was to leave the EU. And that fact makes me very angry and upset and disappointed in my fellow countrymen, and about the future and wellfare of my country. This is not anti-democratic of me. I accept the democratic process. I just intensely dislike the decision, and what it implies about me and my country.
My point originally was to say that people absolutely have a right to feel like this about Trump's presidency, too. I'm paraphrasing here, but earlier in the thread, someone said they felt sick that Donald Trump had won, as in, they were extremely upset by the election results. Another person, in response, said that they should calm down, that it wasn't the end of the world, and that Trump wasn't going to cause an apocalypse. This directly inspired my first post, and the opinion I am trying to convey: that it isn't right to dismiss someone who is sickened by this election result as just having succumbed to blind sensationalist hysteria about how Trump is going to destroy the world. That's shooting down a straw man; the real reason people are sickened by this result is because Trump is, provably, a vile human being (unless, of course, you disagree that racist comments, shady business practice, serial sexual abuse and confessing to watching underage girls undress, among other things, makes you pretty vile, which most people do not disagree with.) And people are deeply unnerved, uncomfortable, and disturbed in the extreme by having such a man be the leader of their country, and acting as their democratic representative. Again, this is not unreasonable or undemocratic, as outlined above, and I struggle to see how this is "entitled", either.
Put it this way, to make the point extremely blatant: if I resurrected Hitler, and he became the leader of your country, how would you feel? You'd dislike this fact intensely, correct? You'd have voted against him, but democracy means he won his seat. This does not mean you have to support Hitler, and that you cannot hate the fact that Hitler is now the leader of your country. This is not to compare Trump and Hitler in terms of policy or whatever, I just chose a figure from history I could be pretty sure you'd strongly dislike acting as your leader (put Stalin or Genghis Khan or Pol Pot, or Maggie Thatcher for the Scottish, or whatever equivalent you like in there, instead, it doesn't matter.)
I also get the idea that you really really dislike Trump much more than you dislike Clinton or any other random candidate, as you called him a large variety of words. The fact that you put his campaign away as a shitshow shows that much to me.
I do intensely dislike Trump. More than words can express, in fact. He disgusts me. But, then again, so does Clinton. Again, my point is not really related to this. The only reason it was Trump I focused on is because he's the candidate who won and, thus, is the one that people are having these conversations about.
And yes you are being fucking hysterical, because path dependency, legal obligations for Trump and limitations on his power are put in place especially in the United States of America where states have a large amount of autonomy in and of their own. You act as if he's about to declare the empire of Trumpia, where as he's not even in fucking office yet. There are so many policy-making obstacles to overcome for him that thinking anything other than 'it'll be okay' is stupid.
Right! Lovely, yes. See, this is why I'm rather sure you didn't actually read anything I said properly. My entire point is that:
People who feel sick (angry, upset, whatever) over the election result do not feel so because they think Trump is going to cause an apocalypse! It is not because they think things won't be okay, that WWIII is coming, that he is going to turn the US into the empire of Trumpia. My point, from the very beginning, has been to say that the contents of your above paragraph is just shooting a straw man.
My point is that people feel sick because Trump is a vile human being that they do not want as their representative. People feel ill that their society, their culture, is one that elected a sexist, racist, negative-but-accurate-adjective pig. The point of a democratic representative is to, well, represent you, and people feel horrified that the man who will be making decisions in their name is so awful. They know it isn't some apocalyptic event; that isn't why they hate this so much.
Again, imagine how you would feel should your fellow countrymen vote in Hitler (or Stalin or Pol Pot or whatever.) Imagine how you would feel when Hitler met with the leaders of other countries to represent you. It would feel pretty disgusting, wouldn't it? So, perhaps you can understand my point now. Sure, even if Hitler was voted in as your country's leader, there are limits in place so that he could not do horrible things - but that isn't the point. The point is, he's an awful vile person, and you do not want him representing you and your country.
I also think it is very ironic you say something about 'not declaring who you supported' but simultaneously assuming what I was trying to imply. I don't know who you supported, it obviously wasn't Trump, you're visibly upset with the outcome (and as you say, sick with it?) and I find that stupid because this is the outcome of a democratic process we all agreed upon.
I think nobody has a right to be sick. I think everyone has a right and obligation to suck it up and vote more wisely in the next election. But yes, Trump will represent them, and despite what you seem to believe, representative democracy ensured that as a majority wished for Trump to represent them. Therefore, mob law is rule. No need to be upset, only to accept what has happened and use it as a lesson in the future, no?
Sorry, but, again, I very much struggle to understand this view you have that people are not allowed to be upset over this without calling Trump's right to presidency into question. Just because you accept that he is now the president and that, whether you like it or not, he will be representing you, does not mean you have to like this fact in any way. You can actively despise this fact, actually, and are completely within your rights to. Yes, everyone is going to have to suck it up and deal with it, because you can't overthrow the majority vote. But how on earth does that mean you have to blithely accept it and shrug your shoulders? People have a right to hate what has happened, to be worried about it, to express that they still disagree with the majority. Indeed, I think it's an extremely positive thing for democracy for people to express when they are unhappy with their representatives. Your version of democracy seems to rely on people having no mind of their own as soon as the majority vote is in.
Furthermore your insinuation that the rest of the world now has to see Trump as the pinnacle of American society is laughable at best. Come on. Be more creative. I never saw Obama as the pinnacle of American society, so I will never see Trump as pinnacle of American society. Presidents are just people. If you think otherwise you're dehumanizing the most human process in the world, namely governance.
Well, unfortunately, that is sort of what the point of electing a representative is? Perhaps "pinnacle of society" was poor phrasing, but I can't help feeling you're being intentionally obtuse here. Obviously, the point of an elected representative is essentially "the views of this person are the views of our country." In other words, by electing Trump, America has declared that Trump is the person who is most representative of them and their society.
Representative. Not just a representative, as a person. His views and personality are now representative of the US' views and personality, so to speak, because the majority of Americans voted him in and thus declared that his thinking is in line with their own. If the majority of the people say "I agree with that guy", then of course the views of "that guy" are the primary way the rest of the world sees the society/people he is from. This is literally the point of an elected representative.
This was what I was getting at when I said he is now the "pinnacle of American society". Poor phrasing, but whatever, it's clarified now.
And, of course, I think it's quite reasonable for, say, a sexual abuse survivor to be sickened by the fact that Donald Trump, a self-confessed serial sexual abuser, to be their representative on the world stage, and the man the rest of the world sees as representative of the survivor's society and, actually, of the survivor themselves as an individual in that society.
And to be honest your last sentence is what bothers me most. It's not anybody's fault that Trump and Clinton were the only two choices other than that of the American people. If you want to be angry be angry at the American people as a collective for being such a shitty people that they allowed these people to get to to the top. It's not this 'vile mans' fault that they gave him the chance to become president. He simply took it.
You know that meme about 'how did we allow these 2 clowns to become candidates' said the country mourning the death of a gorilla 6 months after it's death? It's fucking true. The anger is misplaced if it is directed at Trump. Rather people should invest more time into knowing a candidate, but also in knowing the political process in the USA. It's fucking mind boggling that people still believe Clinton is the 'lesser evil' for example.
I can be angry at Trump for being a shitty human being, which I am. And I am pissed at the American populace for electing him, and for having their only viable candidates be two of the worst fucking candidates I've ever seen. The whole thing is a disgrace.
But again, if you'd actually read anything I've said, you'd realise none of that is at all relevant to my original point.... which was all to do with how people have a right to be sickened by Trump being their representative, and that dismissing those people as being hysterical apocalypse-callers is shooting down a straw man. Indeed, I actually very clearly stated this in my last post: "I'm less pissed off that Trump won, and more pissed off at those people who agree that Trump is abhorrent, and yet are also saying that anyone who is seriously, deeply concerned about that fact is "hysterical"."
With that, I'm done. If there's any confusion left, I rather give up on this discussion and will agree to disagree with you without any need for further discussion.
Oh boy. Right, okay. So, I'll reply individually to people below, but to everyone generally: please go back and actually read what I said. Nowhere did I say I support Hillary (in fact, I called her a non-candidate too). Nowhere did I say Donald Trump shouldn't be president, considering he was, indeed, democratically elected in. I have no idea where the hell you got this from, other than making the assumption of "he doesn't like Trump so he's a filthy fucking frothy-mouthed fanatical leftie."
My point was that those who are brushing this aside as "oh, meh, the results of Trump's presidency probably won't be so bad, don't be hysterical" are completely ignoring the actual reason people are so shocked and appalled. They aren't appalled because they think WWIII is gonna happen, they're appalled and sick to the stomach at the thought that Donald Trump is the face of the US, and is now how the rest of the world sees the US. Statistically, I now have to believe that if I talk to an American online, any one of you, that you actually went out and voted for Trump, and that you agree with his lunacy. That's what is making people feel ill, and it's not hysterical to feel that way. To imply people hate the result because they're hysterical and think WWIII is gonna happen is just shooting down straw men rather than focusing on the reality that an absolutely vile, disgusting human being and joke of a "politician" is now your leader, and that that is a very bad thing.
Basically: I'm less pissed off that Trump won, and more pissed off at those people who agree that Trump is abhorrent, and yet are also saying that anyone who is seriously, deeply concerned about that fact is "hysterical". Sorry, no - people absolutely should be sick to their stomach at the thought of being represented by such a reprehensible man.
_____________________________________
I fundamentally believe that "protest voting" is fucking moronic. Screwing over your entire country by voting for someone/something you know is goddamn terrible and an inferior choice just to stick your finger up at the establishment is stupid in the extreme. The catharsis gained by lashing out and expressing your dissatisfaction with the establishment with this sort of protest vote is vastly outweighed by the sheer damage that is usually caused by said vote. This is exactly what I am seeing in my own country, with Brexit.
Anyone who protest-voted in this way, who voted for Trump without believing his policies were best, has condemned themselves and their neighbours to four years of absolute travesty for the sake of essentially throwing a childish tantrum. The working class voting Trump just to assert that they are an important demographic, just to say "PAY ATTENTION TO ME LAH-DEE-DAH", is, again, just stupid, especially as they one of the demographics who have a high chance of suffering under his presidency. If you're dissatisfied with the Democrats, there are better ways to go about fixing what they're doing wrong than voting for someone you know is probably going to be worse.
So, the majority of Americans either: genuinely think Trump is a legitimate candidate and they like his policies; or they voted for him in protest, the flaws of which I have highlighted above. Neither of those is exactly endearing me to Trump voters, and, by extension, to the American populace who majority-voted him in.
_____________________________________
Learn to read, please. <3 See the beginning of this post. To summarise: nowhere did I say Trump shouldn't be president now that the majority have voted for him. Nowhere did I announce who I supported in this race. If you want to participate in conversation, be sure you've actually read and understood what a person is saying rather than making blind assumptions such as "doesn't like Trump" = "Clinton supporter" = "thinks Trump should be impeached immediately", or whatever it was you were even trying to imply I thought. Thanks.
_____________________________________
@Vilageidiotx @Buddha, sorry, but just to clarify, the fact that I'm British doesn't mean I don't care about the results of this election or that I don't respect the American electorate's right to vote in whoever they want.
In terms of caring, this election affects the whole world, unfortunately - believe me, I thoroughly wish that wasn't so, but it's naive to pretend it isn't the case. Furthermore, I have a lot of genuinely close friends in the US who I am concerned for as well, and had been considering moving there to complete my PhD in a few years' time, so I have a high degree of personal investment too. Please don't be so convinced that anyone not on the American electoral register has no real, vested interest in this election.
In terms of respecting the electorate, I fully believe that democratic decisions should be upheld. That is, as a random example, why I am somewhat concerned about the current legal challenges around the government enacting Article 50 without consulting Parliament, and the potential ramifications of the decision swinging either way in our Supreme Court.
_____________________________________
Please see what I said about "protest voting" above. I feel exactly the same way about the Brexit vote, and about the growth of the right-wing throughout Europe. You're right; people aren't racist bigots. They're still idiots for protest-voting on major issues out of petulant dissatisfaction, though.
.
Could not disagree more. Logic should temper emotion, but not eradicate it.
There is an obvious moral and philosophical aspect to policy and legislation - perhaps even more so in the US than in many other places. Moral views in particular are, and should be, guided by emotion to a large extent. There are many, many hypothetical examples I could give to demonstrate this, but I'm sure you're familiar with most of the arguments surrounding such things.
It logically follows that you cannot and should not eradicate emotion from politics. You are right in that emotion can be manipulated; and this is why I say logic should always temper emotion. But to say it should be eradicated completely is to encourage a society devoid of any sense of moral or philosophical imperatives in favour of pure efficiency, which tends to end badly when we start doing things like killing off everyone above retirement age.
And, therefore, I stand by my original point/post: the idea that people who do not agree with Trump and his moral character (which, in my opinion, is the vast majority of the electorate considering how many protest-votes I think likely came out) have a right to, and probably should, feel pretty sickened by the fact that he's now been declared the pinnacle of the US' entire culture.
My point was that those who are brushing this aside as "oh, meh, the results of Trump's presidency probably won't be so bad, don't be hysterical" are completely ignoring the actual reason people are so shocked and appalled. They aren't appalled because they think WWIII is gonna happen, they're appalled and sick to the stomach at the thought that Donald Trump is the face of the US, and is now how the rest of the world sees the US. Statistically, I now have to believe that if I talk to an American online, any one of you, that you actually went out and voted for Trump, and that you agree with his lunacy. That's what is making people feel ill, and it's not hysterical to feel that way. To imply people hate the result because they're hysterical and think WWIII is gonna happen is just shooting down straw men rather than focusing on the reality that an absolutely vile, disgusting human being and joke of a "politician" is now your leader, and that that is a very bad thing.
Basically: I'm less pissed off that Trump won, and more pissed off at those people who agree that Trump is abhorrent, and yet are also saying that anyone who is seriously, deeply concerned about that fact is "hysterical". Sorry, no - people absolutely should be sick to their stomach at the thought of being represented by such a reprehensible man.
_____________________________________
That's only half the story though, isn't it?
... -snip- ...
<Snipped quote by mdk>
I agree completely with this. Working class are still the most important voting block, and they let the world know last night.
... -snip- ...
I fundamentally believe that "protest voting" is fucking moronic. Screwing over your entire country by voting for someone/something you know is goddamn terrible and an inferior choice just to stick your finger up at the establishment is stupid in the extreme. The catharsis gained by lashing out and expressing your dissatisfaction with the establishment with this sort of protest vote is vastly outweighed by the sheer damage that is usually caused by said vote. This is exactly what I am seeing in my own country, with Brexit.
Anyone who protest-voted in this way, who voted for Trump without believing his policies were best, has condemned themselves and their neighbours to four years of absolute travesty for the sake of essentially throwing a childish tantrum. The working class voting Trump just to assert that they are an important demographic, just to say "PAY ATTENTION TO ME LAH-DEE-DAH", is, again, just stupid, especially as they one of the demographics who have a high chance of suffering under his presidency. If you're dissatisfied with the Democrats, there are better ways to go about fixing what they're doing wrong than voting for someone you know is probably going to be worse.
So, the majority of Americans either: genuinely think Trump is a legitimate candidate and they like his policies; or they voted for him in protest, the flaws of which I have highlighted above. Neither of those is exactly endearing me to Trump voters, and, by extension, to the American populace who majority-voted him in.
_____________________________________
-snip-
Learn to read, please. <3 See the beginning of this post. To summarise: nowhere did I say Trump shouldn't be president now that the majority have voted for him. Nowhere did I announce who I supported in this race. If you want to participate in conversation, be sure you've actually read and understood what a person is saying rather than making blind assumptions such as "doesn't like Trump" = "Clinton supporter" = "thinks Trump should be impeached immediately", or whatever it was you were even trying to imply I thought. Thanks.
_____________________________________
@Vilageidiotx @Buddha, sorry, but just to clarify, the fact that I'm British doesn't mean I don't care about the results of this election or that I don't respect the American electorate's right to vote in whoever they want.
In terms of caring, this election affects the whole world, unfortunately - believe me, I thoroughly wish that wasn't so, but it's naive to pretend it isn't the case. Furthermore, I have a lot of genuinely close friends in the US who I am concerned for as well, and had been considering moving there to complete my PhD in a few years' time, so I have a high degree of personal investment too. Please don't be so convinced that anyone not on the American electoral register has no real, vested interest in this election.
In terms of respecting the electorate, I fully believe that democratic decisions should be upheld. That is, as a random example, why I am somewhat concerned about the current legal challenges around the government enacting Article 50 without consulting Parliament, and the potential ramifications of the decision swinging either way in our Supreme Court.
_____________________________________
It all begs the question - if Donald Trump is so fucking bad and unsuited for president, how the hell could a shrewd politician like Clinton lose in the first place? Maybe, just maybe, the DNC should have chosen Bernie or literally anyone that didn't have so much dirt on them instead.
Secondly, playing the blame game is precisely why this shit is happening. No, people aren't dumb and bigoted for voting Trump, they're just unsatisfied with the current status quo, as are people in the EU. Why do you think Brexit happened? Why are right-winged populist parties gaining traction throughout Western Europe in countries like France, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and so forth? It's easy to dismiss everyone you don't agree with as a bigot and a racist, but the truth runs much deeper.
Please see what I said about "protest voting" above. I feel exactly the same way about the Brexit vote, and about the growth of the right-wing throughout Europe. You're right; people aren't racist bigots. They're still idiots for protest-voting on major issues out of petulant dissatisfaction, though.
.
Lastly, a message to you folks that have been plaguing my social media feeds (and the Guild's status bar) all day - politics is a game of logic. The moment you start getting emotional is the moment some politician starts using that emotion for their own agenda.
Could not disagree more. Logic should temper emotion, but not eradicate it.
There is an obvious moral and philosophical aspect to policy and legislation - perhaps even more so in the US than in many other places. Moral views in particular are, and should be, guided by emotion to a large extent. There are many, many hypothetical examples I could give to demonstrate this, but I'm sure you're familiar with most of the arguments surrounding such things.
It logically follows that you cannot and should not eradicate emotion from politics. You are right in that emotion can be manipulated; and this is why I say logic should always temper emotion. But to say it should be eradicated completely is to encourage a society devoid of any sense of moral or philosophical imperatives in favour of pure efficiency, which tends to end badly when we start doing things like killing off everyone above retirement age.
And, therefore, I stand by my original point/post: the idea that people who do not agree with Trump and his moral character (which, in my opinion, is the vast majority of the electorate considering how many protest-votes I think likely came out) have a right to, and probably should, feel pretty sickened by the fact that he's now been declared the pinnacle of the US' entire culture.
Fuck you, Americans.
To be honest, the voices of reason in this thread are probably correct. It's not the end of the world. The president of the US is not an all-powerful dictator, and certainly for those of us outside of the US, Trump's focus on internal policy may actually, somehow, bode well.
But that's not really the point. Some hysteria about WWIII isn't why people are feeling sick.
The point is that you've collectively decided to put a moronic, selfish, lying, serial sexual abusing, racist, incompetent, populist, and all-round vile man at the head of your country. You've declared that this is the man your country wants to lead it, whose vision of America is one you want to bring to fruition. This is the way you think the world should be.
That is what makes people feel sick. They feel sick that they, as a person, are represented by a disgusting excuse for a human being. Their political voice on the world stage is that of Donald fucking Trump. Donald Trump is how the rest of the world now has to perceive as being representative of American people and American society, because you've pointed at his disgusting behaviour and proudly declared "this is who we are".
That would certainly make me feel sick. It makes me sick on behalf of those US citizens I know who absolutely do not deserve to be viewed in such a way. And it should make any of you who doesn't support Trump's circus shitshow feel sick, too. You deserve better than this.
Sometimes the ideas and principles are above the pure practicality. Saying "oh, it's not so bad, don't be hysterical" is disingenuous. Be upset, be angry that this is the result, that you were left with a choice between two non-candidates.
To be honest, the voices of reason in this thread are probably correct. It's not the end of the world. The president of the US is not an all-powerful dictator, and certainly for those of us outside of the US, Trump's focus on internal policy may actually, somehow, bode well.
But that's not really the point. Some hysteria about WWIII isn't why people are feeling sick.
The point is that you've collectively decided to put a moronic, selfish, lying, serial sexual abusing, racist, incompetent, populist, and all-round vile man at the head of your country. You've declared that this is the man your country wants to lead it, whose vision of America is one you want to bring to fruition. This is the way you think the world should be.
That is what makes people feel sick. They feel sick that they, as a person, are represented by a disgusting excuse for a human being. Their political voice on the world stage is that of Donald fucking Trump. Donald Trump is how the rest of the world now has to perceive as being representative of American people and American society, because you've pointed at his disgusting behaviour and proudly declared "this is who we are".
That would certainly make me feel sick. It makes me sick on behalf of those US citizens I know who absolutely do not deserve to be viewed in such a way. And it should make any of you who doesn't support Trump's circus shitshow feel sick, too. You deserve better than this.
Sometimes the ideas and principles are above the pure practicality. Saying "oh, it's not so bad, don't be hysterical" is disingenuous. Be upset, be angry that this is the result, that you were left with a choice between two non-candidates.
"Myyt Romney". I'm like 90% sure it's not the right pronunciation but it's too ingrained now.
<Snipped quote by Halo>
Eh, while I disagree with the current situation with Toellner, I never found Jorick to be someone who would abuse his power. He was always the first to take his licks for stepping out of line, and to speak up for not penalizing people. I know he rubbed some people the wrong way, but he was a good guy for the most part from my personal experience.
We both joined around the same time and hit it off right away. :(
Meh. Don't get me wrong, I liked Jorick and I don't think he's a bad guy. I just think he had a massive ego and enjoyed having it fed into. I don't think he'd intentionally abuse power given, not with maliciousness. I just think he has a predisposition for pompousness and arrogance that, particularly when fed into, naturally leads to a sort of unintentional abuse.
But tbh I don't know the guy that well and have no investment in the issue, I was just chatting shit for old times' sake :')
© 2007-2024