1726

Yep, this is pretty much it, I think. I just bite the ever-living shit out of my lip, while I drive them to physical therapy, and then I lurch over the coffee machine afterwards, catching my breath, as the 7-11 employee wonders aloud if I’m OK.

1727

Would it hurt to just gently question them about it, and maybe suggest voting differently in the future? Could help dampen Trump’s influence if the GOP loses control of congress.

1728

Alternatively, toss a couple of bootstraps in front of them and suggest they divine how to arrive at PT of their own accord, then leave, laughing manically (additional “a” omitted purposefully) before breaking down into tears?

Thus marks the 7th day I’ve awoken ti discover all of this hasn’t been a nightmare.

1729

This isn’t the nightmare. This is the unholy combination of bourbon and cheap chinese food you eat that precedes the nightmare.

1730

Well in the two options you brought up, one of them doesn’t fall on the researchers. I still think blaming the campaign or the researchers is simplistic and doesn’t take into account that a lot of news outlets actively rejected, or decided to hold, oppo research against Trump. Bush’s lead researcher basically made that claim on twitter earlier in the fall.

1731

One more attempt, then: Give us an abstract definition of racism that correctly categorizes all statements presented as examples in this thread. If I recall, they were: “Being Mexican might bias a judge against Trump”, “A white man cannot portray Martin Luther King.”, and “Asian people are good at math.”[quote=“Timex, post:1719, topic:126864”]
Ok, just so we’re clear, do you in fact understand that your argument here is already established as totally wrong? I mean, within the scope of legal precedent.
[/quote]
It never was a legal argument. It’s a tool to frame a discussion.

1732

Racism is a fallacy predicated partly on race.

Accusing Judge Curiel of bias because of his race is a fallacy, specifically the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

“A white man cannot portray MLK” is obviously false, they are perfectly capable of the job. But most people mean to say “A white man should not portray MLK”, which is not a logical argument at all. It is a question of decorum, based on the fact that MLK is a sympathetic figure who suffered at the hands of white men.

“Asian people are good at math” may or may not be racist, depending on the level of supporting evidence. “You are Asian, so you must be good at math” is a fallacy, and therefore racist.

1733

Is there any room for common sense in this argument which is increasingly looking pedantic in nature? Donald Trump made an accusation that a judge should not be able to preside over his case solely on his ethnicity. The guy was an American-born citizen in Indiana, but that doesn’t matter. He shouldn’t be able to hear his case solely because of his heritage.

Is your position really that that isn’t racist? If not, please give us your definition of it.

1734

Racism is when you make fallacious generalizations about a person due to their race.

Again, I’m not sure if you think that the actor playing martin luther king thing is in fact some kind of great rhetorical victory? You realize that it’s not really compelling in the least, right?

I mean, we already covered it. In that case, one of the actual desirable qualities of the actor, is specifically contained within his actual physical attributes as a result of race, since the part involves playing the role of an actual person from history, who had actual physical qualities you are trying to mimic. Certainly, you could still actually have a white man play such a role, although to do so he would likely need a great deal of makeup to achieve the desired goal.

You aren’t making a generalization about a person due to their race in that case. You are making a statement about the ACTUAL qualities of people of different races, which are objectively true.

To highlight this difference, let’s take a similar case of gender. I can say, “Women are less intelligent than men” and that would be a sexist statement. But I can say, “Women have two X chromosomes,” and this is not sexist at all. It’s merely a statement about an objective observation.

Your Martin Luther King example does not exemplify racism, because it is merely talking about a requirement due to objectively observable qualities, due to a desire to have a physical similarity to an existing person from history.

Yes, I think that perhaps this would be a useful exercise, to find out what exactly constitutes racism in your mind, if saying that you cannot perform a duty which is not specifically centered on being a member of a certain race, due to your race, is not racist.

1735

I’d like to hear more about this digression.

Edit: Sorry, didn’t scroll down enough to see the ensuing discussion.

1736

Surely the protest vote was considerable? Everyone was so assured Hillary would win that the protest voters were convinced their protest vote wouldn’t matter.

Many Brexiters have said the same.

1737

Sorry nope, this is actually the hangover and nausea we will all have for the next 4 years because of the Chinese food and bourbon from last week.

1738

Today, I learned two things about Doug Tennaple:

  1. He’s apparently friends with an old friend of mine from the Governor’s School for the Humanities I attended in high school.

  2. He’s just a little bit racist. Maybe a lot bit.

Oh Facebook :(

1739

While I agree with almost everything you’ve been saying in here, this part, that keeps coming back, is just nonsense. Just because Trump is all those things, it does not mean everyone who voted for him is also like that. You cannot be the person you vote for, otherwise you would not be able to vote for anyone! There’s always something to find, in any candidate, that you don’t like and would rather not be associated with!

You already explained that Trump voters voted for the whole package, which includes this rotten part. And I fully agree. I also agree that apparantly these people were able to oversee all these flaws in Trump and vote for him anyway, for whatever what reason, and that they should own up for that. But I still wont accept that this makes all of them, personally, racists and misogynistic. They wont suddenly start discriminating if they were not doing so before, etc. And, looking from way over here, I think that’s were the hope is for America: a lot of people may have voted for Trump, but they wont all practice what he preaches…

1740

I think this is certainly true. I’m sure I know people who voted for Trump who don’t hate me and my family. But the alarming part is that they voted for Trump without caring that he hates me and my family. I’m not sure what that makes them other than people who don’t care what happens to me and my family.

1741

Maybe not. But it does make them active enablers. When 60% of a candidates positions are flat-out racist, and you vote for that person knowing they will implement those policies, you are culpable. Even if you personally disagree with those policies, it doesn’t matter, you enabled them to occur.

You don’t get to pick and choose which parts of the candidate you support. Yes, you won’t agree with everything that a candidate stands for. So when you vote, you are picking the one that either you agree with the most, or whose bad positions you are most easily able to live with. This election The People apparently decided that racism is a-ok as long as we can still have guns and factory jobs. That, to me, is racism, just not as overt.

1742

I am not blaming the campaign on the researchers. I am saying that Trump’s Republican opponent screwed up but not getting the most damaging stuff about him out during the primaries when there was a possibility of stopping him earlier. Now it very well may not have mattered given the mood of the country, and especially the base of the party. But having a few more months to get confirmation Trump’s sexual assault victims, plus have more come forward. A few months to investigate the Russian ties all would have been super helpful in preventing a Trump presidency.

1743

But what you’re missing here is that voting for a candidate implies that you accept everything they stand for. You may not LIKE all of it, but you ACCEPT it. You think that it’s OK.

I voted for Clinton, the first Democratic presidential nominee I ever voted for. I did not agree with all of her ideas, but I accepted them. I did not find any of them abhorrent.

If you voted for Trump, that means that you accepted his prejudicial, xenophobic positions. You thoughts that, when everything is said and done, that it’s OK for the country to implement those policies. That those things are not worth standing up against.

And that is why I classify those voters as being culpable for those beliefs. They are not murderous monsters who lynch black men and hang them from trees. But they are still soft, passive bigots who don’t really CARE if the country pursues bigotry as a matter of national policy.

Not caring about the rights of other groups of people is in fact an act of bigotry, at least to me.

1744

I don’t believe that the majority of Trump voters are racist or misogynistic in the classical Klan member way. There are some, obviously, that are openly terrible, but I believe the majority are people that fall into these categories:

  1. They prioritize their impact issues over racism and misogyny. “Look, this stuff is terrible, but at the end of the day I need to put food on my table, and I think the GOP can change what’s happening to me. I’m sorry for everyone else, but I need to look out for me and mine.”

  2. They don’t believe the racism and misogyny is as serious as others say. “It’s locker room talk. Every guy says this stuff when they’re hanging out with the fellas, but it’s just talk. No one means anything by it. Chicks need to learn to take a joke. I’ve got a good buddy that’s black.”

  3. They just plain don’t care, and find the accusations offensive. “BLM is bullshit. Women’s issues are bullshit. It’s all PC bullshit. Let’s be honest, most terrorists are Muslim.”

The issue for me is that any of these three stances result in the same outcome for the targets of the racism and misogyny. Nothing gets better, and in some cases, shit can get worse. The best stance still means you put yourself ahead of other people.

1745

I mean you called the researchers inept and put blame on them. If you want to put it on the campaigns or the mood that’s cool, just not what you initially said.

All of this stuff was known in the primaries and did just as much damage as it did in the general. Knowing the information and getting it out there and then getting people to care are all separate things.

For the record saying “a few months” is a lifetime in a presidential primary.