Best Post-Election Reaction

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

58 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Right, but when you're constantly, relentlessly being called racist, or having people say things that insinuate you're a racist, it wears on you. 

We can make brave statements about how all that matters is what we truly believe or what God thinks or what our friends think, but that isn't really true.  Humans are psychologically designed to crave approval.  It's part of our communal instinct.  We want to be thought well of.  Of course it isn't the same for everyone... Some of us obsess over approval while others really do seem to be able to get along just fine without it... but we all want it, on some level.

You're right.  But consider that this goes both ways.  I could either accuse you of taking a victim stance right now (but I won't because I hate that) or remind you that it must be really draining to relentlessly have to deal with racism too.  

A big part of the problem is that each side only sees their own side, and doesn't understand the other's point of view or experience. 

[unixknight]

9 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

You're right.  But consider that this goes both ways.  I could either accuse you of taking a victim stance right now (but I won't because I hate that) or remind you that it must be really draining to relentlessly have to deal with racism too.  

A big part of the problem is that each side only sees their own side, and doesn't understand the other's point of view or experience. 

I think that's usually true.  I also think there are lots of people who sincerely make the effort to see both sides, but it's even MORE aggravating when you do that and STILL are accused of racism anyway. 

Ask me how I know.

[Guest]

Mitt Romney is meeting with Trump this weekend and rumors and swirling that Romney might be the Secretary of State.

[Sunday21]

Imagine what it must be like to be one of the reporters stationed in the lobby of trump tower, watching people come and go and trying to guess from the visitors' demeanour, pre and post visit what is going on. What a wretched job. Makes slaving over a hot computer seem more bearable. 

[unixknight]

1 hour ago, Sunday21 said:

Imagine what it must be like to be one of the reporters stationed in the lobby of trump tower, watching people come and go and trying to guess from the visitors' demeanour, pre and post visit what is going on. What a wretched job. Makes slaving over a hot computer seem more bearable. 

Oh I dunno maybe it's not so bad... You know that as hungry as people are for that kind of gossip, no matter what you write people will eat it up and if you're wrong... well you can always get a job at CNN.

[Sunday21]

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

Oh I dunno maybe it's not so bad... You know that as hungry as people are for that kind of gossip, no matter what you write people will eat it up and if you're wrong... well you can always get a job at CNN.

Really did LOL!

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

12 hours ago, unixknight said:

I think that's usually true.  I also think there are lots of people who sincerely make the effort to see both sides, but it's even MORE aggravating when you do that and STILL are accused of racism anyway. 

Ask me how I know.

People who make the sincere efforts to see both sides?  Where can I find these people?  I would like to be acquainted with them.  

You think being called a racist is bad, how would you like to be called "nigger" or "ape in heels"?  Toughen up and stop playing the victim...heh heh.  

[Guest]

2 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

You think being called a racist is bad, how would you like to be called "nigger" or "ape in heels"?  Toughen up and stop playing the victim...heh heh.  

I understand the point you're making, and I get it.  But this statement brings up another nuance to the issue.  Compare those labels.

Labels like "nigger" are specifically a pejorative for the Black race.  While I would censure the usage of such words, the usage fits the definition of what the word is intended to mean -- i.e. a pejorative for a person of African descent. Because of this, it's easy to declare that polite people should not use it in regular conversation.

When one uses the term "racist", it isn't just a pejorative.  It is a real word with a real meaning.  And it is a serious topic that we should address.  And what irks people most about the usage is the inaccuracy.  This is why the "ape in heels" in my mind is worse than "nigger".  The latter is a disgraceful pejorative.  The former is not only meant as a pejorative, it is also highly inaccurate.

When I get called various pejorative terms for Asians, I tend to roll my eyes at it and chock it up to ignorance and sometimes stupidity.  But when I get called racist, I realize that they know they have lost the debate and are throwing down a card which cannot be responded to just so they can declare victory.  Such usage hurts the debate on the topic of racism in America.

When one throws around such a label whether it is accurate or not, it dulls the senses of people who are not racist into believing that the issue doesn't "really" exist.  Therefore, whenever people bring up the issue again, they ignore the issue further.  It becomes a vicious cycle.  We cannot discuss and hopefully address an issue when the word used to describe it has lost all meaning.

So, which is worse?  To censure usage of racial epithets and still have some stupid/ignorant people use it?  Or to have a label used so much that it stops all discussion on the topic resulting in the perpetuation of the problem?

Decent people will never use such pejorative terms except in a scholarly or forensic manner as applied to any race.  But for some reason it is easy for otherwise decent people to carelessly use the term "racist", and it is acceptable?

Edited November 18, 2016 by Guest

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Thanks Carb.  I appreciate your thought-provoking post.  You make some great points.  I don't disagree with you.  What I still bothers me though (not about you, just this discussion in general) is when I try to point out why some people in America are feeling fear right now, my points are dismissed and the stories I share downplayed.  If we can't take those hate crimes seriously, I have a hard time getting to concerned about someone being called racist.  For me it's like comparing cancer to a paper cut.  

[Sunday21]

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

People who make the sincere efforts to see both sides?  Where can I find these people?  I would like to be acquainted with them.  

You think being called a racist is bad, how would you like to be called "nigger" or "ape in heels"?  Toughen up and stop playing the victim...heh heh.  

I am standing right here! ☃️ Just kidding!

[unixknight]

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

People who make the sincere efforts to see both sides?  Where can I find these people?  I would like to be acquainted with them.  

You think being called a racist is bad, how would you like to be called "nigger" or "ape in heels"?  Toughen up and stop playing the victim...heh heh.  

Well I like to think I'm one of those people.  Have I given the impression that I"m deaf to one side or the other?  I have my point of view, but it doesn't mean I can't see the other side.

I agree with everything @Carborendum said above and I'd add to that by saying that being mindlessly called a racist as a tactic is one of the factors that led us right to where we are now.  People on both sides generally agree that using racist epithets is bad, but only one side delights in shutting down discussion by hurling labels.  Yes, conservatives often use terms like 'liberal,' 'hippie,' 'commie,' and my personal favorite 'moonbat,' but as Carb said, that's an epithet used to refer to refer to them as they are an dis "accurate" insofar as it's targeting the person for who they actually are, just like when liberals call conservatives 'wingnut.'  And the biggest nasty of it all is that when you run around slamming labels like a mantra, it suddenly becomes very difficult not to anymore.  As I have mentioned recently in this and other threads, my own father called me racist for supporting border security and one of my best friends insinuated that my family and friends are mysoginists for voting Trump.  If they were the types of people to use racial epithets then we wouldn't have been friends in the first place, but this is worse, because being called a label like that by someone you love comes right through your shielding and explodes against your heart.

I'd much rather be called a racist epithet than a "racist" because at least the epithet isn't likely to ever come from a friend.

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Thanks Carb.  I appreciate your thought-provoking post.  You make some great points.  I don't disagree with you.  What I still bothers me though (not about you, just this discussion in general) is when I try to point out why some people in America are feeling fear right now, my points are dismissed and the stories I share downplayed.  If we can't take those hate crimes seriously, I have a hard time getting to concerned about someone being called racist.  For me it's like comparing cancer to a paper cut.  

I can see that point.  But that wasn't really what I was addressing.

One reason why people don't take hate crimes seriously is because the media is so quick to call anything a hate crime.  If they did it more judiciously, then it would be taken more seriously.

The left often says the converse about conservative media and terrorism.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Guest

[Windseeker]

14 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

Mitt Romney is meeting with Trump this weekend and rumors and swirling that Romney might be the Secretary of State.

Picking Romney would be a big reveal of Trumps character especially with Romney having been so outspoken.

[zil]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

One reason why people don't take hate crimes seriously is because the media is so quick to call anything a hate crime.

One reason I don't take them seriously is because I have yet to identify a crime wherein the perpetrator acted out of love (or even like) for the victim.

[unixknight]

36 minutes ago, zil said:

One reason I don't take them seriously is because I have yet to identify a crime wherein the perpetrator acted out of love (or even like) for the victim.

I remember when George W. Bush was talking about this once way back around 2002... He was critical of the idea of a "hate crime" because "any time you kill somebody.. that's hate." 

And to put an Orwellian spin on the notion of "hate crime,"  let's keep in mind that it's essentially saying that one's motive somehow makes it worse.  In other words, your thoughts.  "Hate crime" is only one step away from the idea of "thought crime."

Edited November 18, 2016 by unixknight

[estradling75]

2 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

When I try to point out why some people in America are feeling fear right now, my points are dismissed and the stories I share downplayed.  If we can't take those hate crimes seriously, I have a hard time getting to concerned about someone being called racist.  For me it's like comparing cancer to a paper cut.  

I see two reasons for this...  When dealing with concerns of others people generally fall into two categories.  Empathizes or Fixers.  You are clearly an empathizer and chances are the people you are talking to are fixers.  And there is a long standing disconnect between the groups because each group assumes that the other sees things exact the same way. We have discussed this before... but no one really learns.

The second reason is veiled attacks while laying out the case you want to make.  Human nature priorities responding to attacks over empathy or nurturing..  While you might not have intended for it to be an attack but it is nonetheless viewed that way and responded to accordingly.

Let me give an example.  "I am afraid of what a Trump presidency might mean for me and my family"  That is a concern that a whole lot of people can empathize with including fixers.  Fixers are going to share empathy and concern... by (not surprisingly) by sharing how to fix, minimize, reduce, and/or do to deal with the problem.  This comes from a place of empathy and concern from the heart of the Fixers, but because it is not what empathizes would do or expect they become alienated.  In addition while the persons problem might be caused by other people, fixers understand that people can't fix other people.  People can only fix themselves and only if they are willing to do so. So fixers focus on what the individual who express their concerns can/might/should do.  Because hopefully they are open to doing something about it.  Sadly this is often misunderstood as victim blaming, because the empathy and concern is also being misunderstood.

That was an example of the first case... here is an example of the second.

"I am afraid of what a Trump presidency might mean for me and my family, because it shows that half the country is racist, sexist, bigots."  The only difference is the last half of the statement, and that for many changes a request for empathy and understanding... into an attack.  And as such gets responded to as such. Defensiveness, counter-attacks etc.  And even if people (like non trump voters) can ignore the attack if they are fixers are going to focus on that latter part, because comes off as the more important part.

So to summarize. LiterateParakeet is a empathizer, I am a fixer.  Asking me to be a empathizer is kind of like asking her to be a fixer...  Not very likely to happen.  As a fixer I expressed my empathy and understanding with LiterateParakeet's concern by sharing how to fix/deal with it.  I can't fix the world or the people in it.  I can't even fix LiterateParakeet. But since she posted I can hope she is open to listening and changing herself.  So my comments and suggestions are directed toward her.  Since it is unlikely that she we get that I am acting from empathy and attempts at understanding she will most likely take my comments as victim blaming.  Which I am not.  But we will continue to go round and round.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Windseeker said:

Picking Romney would be a big reveal of Trumps character especially with Romney having been so outspoken.

This is nothing new about Trump.  This has been displayed over and over and over on the campaign trail.  The issue with Megyn Kelly, for example.  When Kelly was new at Fox, Trump has been very supportive of her and helped her rise above the fray.  Kelly, in a stunning display of arrogance, paid him back by being a DEBATER instead of a moderator in the very first Republican debates debating Trump on national TV.  He fired back at Kelly.  Hard.  YET... even after all that, Trump honored Kelly when she launched her own show as her very first interview in her very first show to guarantee a high audience rating and instant success.  Ted Cruz vs Trump was a bloodbath.  Yet, Trump honored Cruz with a prime speaking spot at the RNC convention without needing assurances of an endorsement.

Many more incidences like this in the past 15 months.

 

[Windseeker]

Well, while I'd love to see Romney in that position because he's such a good man, I'm concerned that he might not be tuff enough. So I won't be disappointed if he appoints Nikki Haley instead. 

[NeuroTypical]

16 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

Mitt Romney is meeting with Trump this weekend and rumors and swirling that Romney might be the Secretary of State.

Before Mitt hated Trump, he loved him.  I can't find it on YouTube, but there's a video from years ago with Mitt heaping praise on Trump, his character and his leadership quality.

Politicians flipflop.  Alliances and enemies are temporary things for anyone who plays the game.  And both Romney and Trump play the heck out of the game.

[Vort]

17 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Something else I thought of: Bill Clinton once again proves himself as the smartest, most politically aware democrat in history: 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3935800/Days-losing-election-Hillary-Bill-Clinton-sceaming-match-blame-flagging-campaign-ex-president-angry-threw-phone-roof-Arkansas-penthouse.html

As much as I never liked Bill Clinton and never understood the charm and charisma he obviously had over many, I must admit that he was perhaps the most politically effective president of my lifetime, for good and for bad. He understood coalition-building, something Obama not only never understood but actively turned his nose up at. Had Bill's wife been willing to shut her trap, listen to her husband (whom she may dislike, but that wasn't her focus), and really put what he said into action, we'd be looking at President-elect Hillary Clinton today. She simply refused to grab the brass ring, insisting that it be brought to her on a velvet pillow.

[Guest MormonGator]

45 minutes ago, Vort said:

As much as I never liked Bill Clinton and never understood the charm and charisma he obviously had over many, I must admit that he was perhaps the most politically effective president of my lifetime, for good and for bad. He understood coalition-building, something Obama not only never understood but actively turned his nose up at. Had Bill's wife been willing to shut her trap, listen to her husband (whom she may dislike, but that wasn't her focus), and really put what he said into action, we'd be looking at President-elect Hillary Clinton today. She simply refused to grab the brass ring, insisting that it be brought to her on a velvet pillow.

I generally agree, though Reagan was no slouch when it came to politics and being politically effective either. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

On November 18, 2016 at 5:17 AM, unixknight said:

Well I like to think I'm one of those people.  Have I given the impression that I"m deaf to one side or the other?  I have my point of view, but it doesn't mean I can't see the other side.

I don't know about you. I'm not saying your can't, but I'm not sure that you can. No offense  . I'm just not convinced either way. My point was that I don't feel many people can see both sides, but I didn't mean to make it personal about you, though!!!

This thread is a great example.  Few people want to accept that there are problems from both sides since the election, and most of us didn't vote for him...so why so much denial?  I've asked a couple times if people would agree that there are problems on both sides, and only MormonGator and Backroads acknowledge that.  Why is it so hard to admit that there are crazy people on both sides?  Look how diverse we are here on this board, of course, the political parties are diverse as well.  What I meant about hate crimes...first, I don't like the term hate crime either.  Call it whatever you want to, there has been a rise in violence against minorities since the election. (I shared several links of violence towards minorities and it has repeatedly been dismissed and "poo-poo'ed". )  I don't think that implicates all Trump supporters.  I don't think PC or Anatess would be violent to minorities.  I have family members that I think are racist (though they would never admit it even to themselves, they just think their negative opinions about other races are based on facts not racism.  I strongly disagree.)  But I don't think those family members would resort to violence either.   BUT there is a segment of Trump supporters that are violent and mouthy and they have taken this election as license to abuse minorities.  One would not be "disloyal" to admit that.  

My whole part of this discussion has been trying to illustrate how the other side feels, and I have met with a lot of resistance.   That's why I don't think most people can see both sides.  And it's both sides that do this.  The Liberals are just as blind to the Conservatives point of view as the Conservatives are to the Liberals.  Both sides make erroneous assumptions about what the other side thinks, and then claim they understand.  But they don't.  

Sorry this is rambling...I should rewrite it and make it clearer,  but I don't have time right now.  

 

[unixknight]

41 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I don't know about you. I'm not saying your can't, but I'm not sure that you can. No offense  . I'm just not convinced either way. My point was that I don't feel many people can see both sides, but I didn't mean to make it personal about you, though!!!

Oh no I wasn't taking it personally, I was just fishing for feedback on how I was coming across.  I try to be as self aware as I can and that means asking lots of questions, because we do tend to blind ourselves sometimes.  No worries! 

41 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Few people want to accept that there are problems from both sides since the election, and most of us didn't vote for him...so why so much denial?  I've asked a couple times if people would agree that there are problems on both sides, and only MormonGator and Backroads acknowledge that.  Why is it so hard to admit that there are crazy people on both sides?

Of course there's crazy people on both sides.  I think in most cases if people are slow to say that, it's because we generally figure that goes without saying... but the pattern of discourse over the last couple of decades is that we mostly hear about the crazies on the conservative side because of the dominance of a left-wing perspective in the mass media.  I think people would like to be able to talk openly about the crazies on the left for a while without the constant reminders of the issues on the right which, frankly, we're tired of hearing about.

41 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

My whole part of this discussion has been trying to illustrate how the other side feels, and I have met with a lot of resistance.

That's because we're inundated with how the other side feels... all the time.  If you're even a casual consumer of the mass media you can scarcely go five minutes without hearing about how the other side feels.  It's all we ever hear about.  A person can wake up in the morning and turn on the radio, and if he's listening to virtually any morning entertainment show or most news stations like NPR, you hear everything from a left wing perspective.  When you get home from work in the evening virtually all of the entertainment programming on TV is slanted left.  Tune into the news and if you aren't listening to Fox News you're getting a left wing angle on absolutely everything.  Even when I'm at work they like to have on CNN or MSNBC in the break room and all they're talking about is negative reactions to Trump.  If they discuss conservatives' feelings at all it's a clinical analysis of why these people are so misguided and loony as to vote for a man like him.  Go out on a movie night and Hollywood will be more than happy to remind you of the left wing perspective.

LP, my friend, my sister, we GET IT.  We hear about it constantly, relentlessly, all day every day.  We know how the other side feels because they just won't shut up about it.  Not once have I ever had a liberal, even those who are close friends of mine, ask me for the conservative viewpoint or how we feel about things.  Not one single time, ever.  Sure, they love it when I quietly listen to them while they vent about all their political frustrations, but let me try and vent about mine... and it has to be a debate. 

So now you react with dismay that we're not quite so open to even more of it... LP, I love you like the sister that you are to me, but why are you surprised?

[zil]

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Few people want to accept that there are problems from both sides since the election

I disagree.  Some people have pointed out that some of the provided examples were, basically, hoaxes.  That does not mean those people believe Trump supporters haven't caused problems.  It means those particular examples purporting to demonstrate Trump supporters causing problems were bad / false examples.  (I'm not saying no one has rejected the idea that Trump supporters have caused problems - my memory is not that good and I decline to read all the previous posts; but to my memory, it's specific examples which have been rejected, not the idea that there could be valid examples.)

I personally agree with the belief which I've inferred from some posts that the bad behavior has not been balanced (i.e. one side has behaved more poorly than the other, in quantity, quality, or both).

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I've asked a couple times if people would agree that there are problems on both sides, and only MormonGator and Backroads acknowledge that.

I think you're rounding down.

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

they just think their negative opinions about other races are based on facts not racism

You don't get to decide what another person's thoughts are.  You can observe the impact of their actions, but, IMO, to say "they're thinking racist, they just won't admit it" is the height of arrogance.  No one knows what another person thinks unless said other person speaks their thoughts and we are far too complex and varied of creatures to successfully infer thought based on our own judgement of behavior.  Judge that the impact of an action harmed a particular person or multiple people, and observe that all those impacted are of a particular race - fine, that's objective and observable fact - but you don't get to decide what the actor was thinking - that is unknowable by any but the actor (and God).  (I despise when other people tell me what I am or was thinking - as if!  Me and God are the only people in my head, so unless you're claiming God revealed my thoughts to you, you've got no business asserting knowledge of my thoughts.  Therefore, I will defend anyone and everyone's thoughts from this sort of assertion.)

In short, discussions such as these would be far more productive if they were accurate rather than exaggerated or erroneous.  That, of course, will never happen, thus making such discussions mostly unproductive.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

@unixknight but I'm not talking about "decades of stuff", I'm talking about what has happened since Nov. 8th, after what was a very unique election cycle.  As far as I know  most of us here didn't even vote for Trump.  @zil I agree a couple were frauds, but not all.  The others were written off as "not that big of deal."  

About the media, that's one of the things I'm talking about.  Both sides swear the media is against them.  Or, take the FBI, the Right says the FBI didn't do a good enough job investigating Hillary.  Hillary says the FBI cost her the election by opening that last case too close to the election.  Both sides are sure the FBI is on the other side.  It's like a bad soap opera. 

To both of you, you tell me that you, figuratively, are tired of hearing about some of this stuff that it's talked about all the time.  Well it's not talked about here on the board.  This might surprise you, but I don't particularly enjoy talking politics.  I stay out of most political discussions, the reason I'm in this one is because I do care very much about social issues.  I care that the minorities in America are scared to death of Trump.  And scared to death of what it means about our country that we elected him.  Since as far as I know most people here didn't even vote for him, I don't know why that seems like such a radical idea.

@zil you say I don't get to decide what another's thoughts are.  True, but I can (and do) listen to both sides.  I listen to how they talk about each other and I think, "Holy cow, you guys don't understand each other at all."  For example, I hear the people on the Left saying that Trump supporters are racist, or if not overtly so, that they don't care that Trump is.  And yet, I also have friends on the Right and most of them are not racist.  I know that people like PC voted for Trump because of the Supreme Court Justices, and abortion.  But the Left doesn't see that.  And the Right doesn't see why the Left is afraid.  I can listen to both sides get a pretty good picture.