1756: "I'm With Her"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Netreker0 » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:44 pm UTC

[Edited later because I totally messed up my quote tags. Sorry]

drazen wrote:
I do not think anyone is interested in coming up with "solutions together" anymore. They want their way. My solution, to break everything apart, is a way to give everyone what they want.


Except that it's not. Even in the safest red and blue states, the opposition comprises a non-negligible minority. And they often recognize they have common interests as Californians or Texans that trump the divide between liberal and conservative. Not to mention the fact that it's not a binary spectrum between right and left, and only an idiot would think otherwise. What nation does the gay fiscal conservative choose, the one that renewed anti-sodomy laws, or the one that wants to tax him to hell and create a welfare state? Where does the anti-gay, pro-military socially-conservative Muslim go, the liberal den of sin and permissiveness, or the morally upright near-theocracy that put God back in government... but Allah is not his name? And what about those poor bastards, the Indians? Do they get screwed yet again in this whole deal, or do we let them be a non-aligned buffer zone where they continue to thrive on casinos?


Also, there are deep blue and deep red states that could secede quite easily (if there were not, there would be more than four swing states in most elections). Hillary won Massachusetts 61% - 33%. If we ever did split the country up, I'd likely have to move to take advantage of it. But it'd be worth it if it actually got a left-wing federal government to stop trying to strip away the rights that are actually useful to me.


Respectfully, I don't think you would put your money where your mouth is on this one, or you already would have. Yes, the fear of an eventual left-wing or right-wing takeover is nationwide and inescapable, but in terms of the rights you seem to value (guns chief among them), you could move to many places, right now, and enjoy laws that are much more to your liking, and lower taxes to boot.

I went to school in Boston and I loved the city, and given my particular education, I probably would have made a lot more money those first years out of school if I stuck around (or moved elsewhere in liberal, blue-state territory.) The state's draconian gun laws (and the city's even stricter ones) drove me out. If they haven't caused you to take the fairly moderate step of moving from Mass to somewhere like Texas, Nevada, or Florida, then I doubt they would make you take the far more radical step of emigrating from the People's Republican of Massachusetts to the Second Republic of Texas.

Which is part of the problem. As idiosyncratic as our approach to states' rights may be, it allows people incredible freedom to move around and live in a place where the local government (which actually has the biggest impact on their daily lives), all while still being part of a major economy and protected by the world's strongest military... and they don't. They live somewhere with laws they hate, and they complain. There are a few who sincerely think they can make their home better, if they can simply show the majority of their neighbors that a different way of doing things is a better way, and they stay to try to make a difference. And these people, I respect, even if I disagree with them. There are some who stick around because they think society is better served by having a few dissenting voices willing to make their friends look harder at their beliefs.--for example, the lone conservative in Hollywood. But the vast majority don't fall into these categories. As much as they complain, they won't put in the slightest effort to change their own situation, either by moving or by sincerely trying to change minds where they live, and instead they stick around, telling their neighbors how stupid their beliefs are, and waiting for some third party to swoop in and do the work of changing the community around them.

Which is why I think breaking up the country would ultimately be useless. The most pragmatic guys have already moved. The guys who stayed behind either--on some level--believe it's a good thing for people who disagree with each other to coexist, or they're waiting for someone else to change the demographics for them.
Last edited by Netreker0 on Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:23 am UTC, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5444
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:59 pm UTC

(Disclaimer if it's not already obvious from post history: I'm vehemently anti-Trump, meh on Hillary, and generally way way off the scale and even the axes of most political spectra, in a direction that, if it had to be simplified to left or right, would be way left of the Democrats).

I support secession anywhere at any scale on general principles, but furthermore, for consequentialist considerations: as someone living in a deep-blue state whose status quo is what I would like to see called "centrist" in the country as a whole, I would also support secession on the grounds that I am more than happy to see deep-red states get the fuck out of my country and run themselves into the ground without affecting me (and without the financial support my state currently gives them), leaving me and the remainder of the country better off for it.

My state would easily make a powerful country unto itself, so I wouldn't even be terribly upset if we broke away from the USA... except for the fact that that would make the remaining USA far more fascist/reactionary ("conservative" is too nice of a word) and probably the enemy of my new country, which would be bad for the rest of the country but even more so for me.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

sotanaht
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 2:14 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby sotanaht » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:16 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:
sotanaht wrote:Trump is merely inadequate. If you think he's going to be institutionalizing racism or something to that degree you are wrong.


I really hope you're right.

sotanaht wrote:Hilary on the other hand is Evil. She would be using the pretense of a war with Russia that she herself created to strip away the first and second amendment and institute as much government control as possible.


... But this doesn't give me a lot of faith in your judgement.


Except that's not even a prediction, it's something she's already doing. The Emails are in themselves enough cause for them to go to war with us, Gun control and anti-free speech are the bread and butter of her policy, and her authoritarianism knows no bounds. The country under Hillary would no doubt be Orwell meets modern Sweden. Trump, fool that he is is the worlds last, best hope for freedom.

I don't even really LIKE Trump. Honestly I'm just hoping he can screw things up badly enough that nobody can achieve the level of control they are all salivating over. He's the spanner in the works of a government that was about to reach the tipping point of total dominance.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:27 pm UTC

sotanaht wrote:Except that's not even a prediction, it's something she's already doing. The Emails are in themselves enough cause for them to go to war with us, Gun control and anti-free speech are the bread and butter of her policy, and her authoritarianism knows no bounds.

This is based on absolutely nothing other than paranoid delusion. I'm sorry, I don't actually mean to be belligerent. But seriously, the only part of the quoted section that isn't *completely* fact-free is that she's pro-gun control. But she never advocated that in a sense that would mean stripping away the second amendment.

Mutex
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Mutex » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:28 pm UTC

sotanaht wrote:Except that's not even a prediction, it's something she's already doing. The Emails are in themselves enough cause for them to go to war with us, Gun control and anti-free speech are the bread and butter of her policy, and her authoritarianism knows no bounds. The country under Hillary would no doubt be Orwell meets modern Sweden. Trump, fool that he is is the worlds last, best hope for freedom.

I don't even really LIKE Trump. Honestly I'm just hoping he can screw things up badly enough that nobody can achieve the level of control they are all salivating over. He's the spanner in the works of a government that was about to reach the tipping point of total dominance.


What do you think modern Sweden is like, exactly?

Your last paragraph mirrors my hopes though tbh.

sotanaht
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 2:14 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby sotanaht » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:37 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:
sotanaht wrote:Except that's not even a prediction, it's something she's already doing. The Emails are in themselves enough cause for them to go to war with us, Gun control and anti-free speech are the bread and butter of her policy, and her authoritarianism knows no bounds. The country under Hillary would no doubt be Orwell meets modern Sweden. Trump, fool that he is is the worlds last, best hope for freedom.

I don't even really LIKE Trump. Honestly I'm just hoping he can screw things up badly enough that nobody can achieve the level of control they are all salivating over. He's the spanner in the works of a government that was about to reach the tipping point of total dominance.


What do you think modern Sweden is like, exactly?

Your last paragraph mirrors my hopes though tbh.


Batshit insane laws like the ones requiring kindergarten bus stops to be plowed before the roads leading to them (because how are the busses OR the kids OR the plows going to get there, idiots), immigration policy designed to destroy the nation "so that the white majority can never again be a majority", historical revisionism BY LAW intended to destroy the nations identity, and minorities allowed to get away with murder AND WORSE because any act against them would be racist.

He who controls the past controls the future, and he who controls the present controls the past --Orwell

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Netreker0 » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:43 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:EDIT: Removed prior, omgryebread already handily rebutted it.

Also, the use of "sacred cow" as an insulting and derisive reference mocking the Hindu religion.


Because I'm not willing to accept it's offensive from the claims of someone who is clearly not part of the group and using it as a gotcha, and the closest my research is finding is a Hindu explicitly stating that Hinduism isn't a formal religion that would get up in arms about that.


I never said Hindus would "get up in arms" about. At the risk of stereotyping, in my experience, numerous East and South East Asian religions and philosophies tend to be more relaxed about orthodoxy, more willing to blend elements of different beliefs, and in general, South and East Asians and Americans South and East Asian decent tend to be more willing--or at the very least resigned--not to make waves over stuff that other groups would be happy to "get up in arms" over.

For example, even the unfounded allegation that a major politician used the N-word--in any context--is enough to seriously derail him, and get a bunch of people riled up. John McCain used the word "gook" during his campaign, and refused to apologize for it. (Aside: I consider your implication that whether or not you believe I am part of a certain group has some bearing on whether or not you should feel free to deride that group is without merit, but for the record, I DO belong to the group that, in your view, would have the "right" to get offended by this.) And I still voted for the guy.

And, in another sense, I voted for pragmatism. In the mind of the speaker, calling a black guy a spear-chucker is no different than mocking a Chinese guy's eyes or language (ching chong, wing wong anyone?) They're both a derisive reference to the speaker's perception of their appearance or their culture, they're both "humor" at someone else's expense. And because I know I don't have a large number of people who feel some kinship to me backing me up, and I'm pragmatic, and frankly selfish, and a bit cowardly, I mostly try not to let it bother me, because I've done well for myself, and I've seen enough to know that being "the PC guy," or the "oversensitive guy" doesn't get you far in this country, if your path to success means fitting in with mostly conservative white people.

You, like many others, conflate what is offensive with what people are willing to act offended over--and to some extent, what people expect others to act offended over. There's a whole list of crap I won't even type in quotes, quasi-anonymously, because we as a culture have deemed it okay for black people to damn near riot over it, and a lot of non-blacks are more than willing to jump in and tar and feather someone over it. But there is a quite a lot of stuff people are much more willing to throw around casually, that are offensive to Jews, East Asians, South Asians, the Irish, Eastern Europeans, American Indians and other groups, that they deem acceptable because on the aggregate, these groups don't make a huge deal about it the way blacks do. (Actually, scratch Muslims as of the last ten years or some. Some of them actreally offended nowadays, enough to move the average.)

And it is noteworthy that many of these groups have enjoyed reasonable success finding their niche in this country. Hell, the Japanese got put into camps, and their response was to enlist and fight for their captors--and some of these veterans became the first Asians ever to have any sort of political power. Keeping your head down, swallowing your pride, being willing to smile while being called a slur to your face, basically being Jackie Robinson, is a way you might earn respect, or at least acceptance. In many respects, we other minorities owe every legal right, every modicum of respect and social acceptance, that we now enjoy to blacks, and the white supporters of civil rights, who were willing to fight even when it wasn't pragmatic, who were willing to act offended. But we also saw that they always got kicked in the teeth for their trouble.

On a personal note, I've been on the other side of this as well. When I was in high school, one of my friends who used an offensive term in reference some event (he belonged to the group the slur targeted.) I wasn't particularly worldly then (still not, I suppose), so I started using it myself... until one of my other friends took me aside and told me it was kind of racist, and kind of offensive. I asked the first friend if this was true and if he found it offensive, and he told me it was, and that he didn't because I was fairly well-known at the school and we had tons of mutual friends, and he thought making a big deal about it wouldn't have made his life any easier.

I didn't have any specific malicious intent, but I was definitely in the wrong there. I could have paid more attention before throwing a new term around to how (and whether) others used it--I could have literally looked at the term, thought about what it was referencing, and where it might have come from, and at the very least I should have noticed a caution flag telling me to do more research. And honestly, I was fully aware that the humor of the term was that it mocked someone or another--I just didn't realize which side of that grey line it fell on.

So, no gotchas intended. But next time you call some guy a chink to his face or something, consider that his lack of a reaction isn't because he's particularly happy about it, but rather because he'd rather suck it up and move on than start a fight that only something like 2% of the population might back him up on. Or because he thinks that you might someday interview him for a hedge fund position. If you want to be insulting, be insulting to me, deliberately, because I probably deserve it. Don't do it unintentionally to some random guy "who is clearly notpart of the group" who might be passing by.

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Netreker0 » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:49 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:My state would easily make a powerful country unto itself, so I wouldn't even be terribly upset if we broke away from the USA... except for the fact that that would make the remaining USA far more fascist/reactionary ("conservative" is too nice of a word) and probably the enemy of my new country, which would be bad for the rest of the country but even more so for me.


History kind of supports you on this. The first thing the CSA did after becoming a sovereign nation was launch a preemptive strike on a USA federal installation. In modern terms, it would be like Japan ending their treaty with us, and rather than negotiate a peaceful transition to remove us from Okinawa, they just bombed our base without warning. If there's enough mistrust and hostility to result in secession, then there's probably too much mistrust and hostility for any sort of peace in the immediate aftermath, barring the intervention of a powerful third party. And even then, look at the situations like the partition of India.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:20 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:(Disclaimer if it's not already obvious from post history: I'm vehemently anti-Trump, meh on Hillary, and generally way way off the scale and even the axes of most political spectra, in a direction that, if it had to be simplified to left or right, would be way left of the Democrats).

I support secession anywhere at any scale on general principles, but furthermore, for consequentialist considerations: as someone living in a deep-blue state whose status quo is what I would like to see called "centrist" in the country as a whole, I would also support secession on the grounds that I am more than happy to see deep-red states get the fuck out of my country and run themselves into the ground without affecting me (and without the financial support my state currently gives them), leaving me and the remainder of the country better off for it.

My state would easily make a powerful country unto itself, so I wouldn't even be terribly upset if we broke away from the USA... except for the fact that that would make the remaining USA far more fascist/reactionary ("conservative" is too nice of a word) and probably the enemy of my new country, which would be bad for the rest of the country but even more so for me.

How about kicking states from the union. It's not unprecedented for a federal state to kick out a federal subject [1].
ucim wrote:
Flumble wrote:you seem to fear for an actual dictatorship.
In short: that chance is negligible.

No, it is not negligible. I'd put it at 10%. Yes, we have all this balance of power stuff, but I also watched Trump come from nowhere and defy all odds, becoming the actual Republican nominee for president all while demonstrating his incompetence, drawing instead on the wellsprings of hate. That is extremely powerful. He defied pretty much everything and still got in. I don't know how, but whatever mojo he's using, if elected it will continue, and he could become the Supreme Leader.

There may not be another election.

I'd like to think that the country is robust enough to ward it off, but if that were true, I would have expected it to ward him off long before the nomination. Since that didn't happen, if he gets elected, all bets are off.

The parallels to 1930 Germany, while not exact, are just too close.

Jose

The contentless rhetoric and the types of promises made (including the hatespeech to create an enemy) seem typical of dictators initial elections and the hatespeech being directed at minorities and women are similar to 1930s Germany. And they were both highly charismatic and very talented at picking a population that they could route to support them. Hitler was also seen as a joke internationally and as probably more moderate once he takes office.

I also see huge differences though: the economic situation at the time of the NSDAP getting power was far worse, Hitler had clear ideas and clearly outlined plans to take care of his perceived lesser people and was quite open about them (he even wrote a book about them, although I don't think Trump is the type to write a book), Trump had not really published any plan at all. Hitler was a convicted member of a violent anti-Jewish group, and while Trump has been endorsed by the Klu Klux Klan there's no sign he has been a member or ever took part in their activities. Finally, Hitler, at least in hindsight, seems highly organised and very talented at running an organisation whereas Trump's history strongly suggests he is neither.

In short: while they have a similar way of getting elected, and similar rhetoric, Hitler expressed far clearer and stronger plans and just seems a far more talented leader than Trump. So I'm only mildly worried.

sotanaht
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 2:14 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby sotanaht » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:33 pm UTC

I just feel like bringing up that Trump's win has in all likelihood killed the TPP (according to senators backing trump), which is a HUGE win for freedom of information everywhere. Clinton officially opposed it as a candidate, but she was one of the supporters helping to coordinate the whole thing as a senator.

Of course we must always remain vigilant, the war never ends, but a win is a win.

User avatar
Ayelis
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:01 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Ayelis » Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:35 am UTC

cupric wrote:Hillary is a warmonger, irrationally desperate for money, corrupt, violently angry, a heavy drinker, not merely a liar but tells transparent lies when she'd be better off with the truth, a potential blackmail target, and has made a disaster of every major issue she faced as Secretary of State.

Image

cupric wrote:working class whites and other deplorables?

Do you have any idea the context in which the word "deplorables" was used? Why am I asking, obviously not. She wasn't referring to REPUBLICANS, she was referring to the members of the KKK, who publicly proclaimed their support for him, and whom he refused to denounce. And the video that came out of people at the rallies chanting in german, wearing "trump that bitch" shirts, and physically attacking minorities really did nothing to improve that image. Of course you're not ALL that way, you certainly can't control or restrain the intent of crowds or countries full of people, but it didn't help.

Gorrammit, this whole election is one giant CityMouse-CountryMouse misunderstanding. And ironically, Donald Trump himself shared a part of the speech in which Michael Moore said it best:

Michael Moore wrote:Whether Trump means it or not is kind of irrelevant, because he’s saying the things to people who are hurting, and that's why every beaten-down, nameless, forgotten working stiff who used to be part of what was called the 'middle class' loves Trump. He is the human Molotov Cocktail that they've been waiting for; the human hand grenade that they can legally throw into the system that stole their lives from them.

The dispossessed will walk into the voting booth, be handed a ballot, close the curtain, and take that lever or felt pen or touchscreen and put a big f—ing X in the box by the name of the man who has threatened to upend and overturn the very system that has ruined their lives: Donald J Trump.

Trump's election is going to be the biggest 'f— you' ever recorded in human history. And it will feel good... for a day, yeah, maybe a week, possibly a month. And then, like the Brits, who wanted to send a message, so they voted to leave Europe, only to find out that if you vote to leave Europe, you actually have to leave Europe. And now they regret it, and over 4 million of them have signed a petition to have a do-over. They want another election. It ain’t gonna happen, because you used the ballot as an anger management tool. And now you’re f—ed.

So, when the rightfully angry people of Ohio and Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin find out after a few months in office that President Trump wasn’t going to do a damn thing for them, it will be too late to do anything about it. But I get it. You wanted to send a message. You had righteous anger and justifiable anger. Well, message sent. Good night, America. You’ve just elected the last president of the United States.
--
Don't tase me bro!

cupric
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:29 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby cupric » Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:46 am UTC

Netreker0 wrote:However, to conclude that simply because his opinion differs from yours, he must have been uninformed or not bothering borders on being dismissive and condescending. I find this somewhat ironic, because one of the Trump supporters' grievances I agree withis that their opponents and even people in the mainstream GOP have often been treating them with precisely this sort of dismissive and condescending attitude.


You raise so many relevant points in your post, Netreker0, that I couldn't begin to do them all justice in a reasonable space. I'll just have to say I agree with a lot of it, and the points that I disagree most with are due to a misunderstanding of my position. And any misunderstanding you have is mostly due to the fact that I couldn't spend enough time and space to fully explain myself in the first place, so I'll just let most of it drop.

The issue that I do think is worth one more look is the one you hint at above: At what point does a position become so indefensible that attempting to defend it further constitutes a moral failing?

Certainly such a point exists. Joining the KKK cannot be excused as an honest error in judgement.

And certainly that point is different for different people. If a little kid says, "Heil Hitler," you don't lecture him about National Socialism, you ask him where he learned those words.

So my criticism of xkcd 1756 would be unreasonable if it had been drawn by almost anybody else but Randall Munroe. But since it was Randall, I think my criticism is sound. He's capable of doing better due to his intelligence and insight, and he has a responsibility to do better because of his influence. Holding him to that extreme standard is actually one of the highest compliments I could pay.

EDIT: Of course we'll never be able to settle this argument; all the anti/pro Hillary stuff in this thread is now functionally irrelevant.

But man, anti/pro Trump s**t just got real.
Last edited by cupric on Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:17 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

cupric
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:29 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby cupric » Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:53 am UTC

On Monday and Tuesday, my hope was that by participating in this thread, some people would eventually admit, as they saw her presidency unfold, that they had been willfully blind to Hillary Clinton's failings.

Today, my hope is that some people will come to realize that they have slandered those who conditionally supported Donald Trump. I don't expect him to Make America Great, but I do expect him to Probably Not Make America The Hunger Games.

If he shows even a shred of effectiveness or reasonableness between now and 2021, it will prove beyond a doubt that a lot of Trump haters have themselves been hateful, ignorant fools.

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Netreker0 » Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:59 am UTC

sotanaht wrote:I just feel like bringing up that Trump's win has in all likelihood killed the TPP (according to senators backing trump), which is a HUGE win for freedom of information everywhere.


That's over-simplistic. I'm vaguely wary of yielding sovereignty to international agreements, and I'm extremely worried about the language making it an offense to create anything that "has limited commercial purpose" beyond violating DRM. I personally avoid DRM because it's a pain in the butt, and I prefer to support guys that come up with business models that don't involve policing the hell out of your fans, but I have no moral objections to DRM or to punishing people who knowingly and intentionally help violate copyright, so long as the mens rea is specific intent and the plaintiff or prosecutor has the burden of proof.

I tend to follow EFF's recommendations pretty wholeheartedly, but with regard to the other parts I think they exaggerated the danger. They focus a lot on fairly general language--not that vague is good when it comes to laws--and assume the worst because the U.S. isn't in a great place right now when it comes to fair use.

What worries me more is that President-Elect Trump has indicated that he doesn't want to destroy the TPP, he just wants to renegotiate it to be better in his eyes. My concern is that his stated priorities involve getting favorable concessions when it comes to the financial aspects, stuff that will tip the balance of trade in our favor, and that he might be willing to throw IP concerns under the bus in order to secure a win and fulfill a campaign promise. Most of the IP provisions were designed to counter blatant bootlegging in Asia, but a few countries are pretty terrible about censorship, and I can see them pushing hard to be able to use copyright in order to stifle criticism, as happened a year or so ago in California. Mr. Trump hasn't exactly been a friend to the First Amendment. He's employed SLAPP litigation on numerous occasions, and has stated explicitly that he's quite okay with a system that encourages filing lawsuits you know can't win for the sake of punishing critical speech. (Remember that demand letter he sent poor Senator Rubio?)

All that being said, I sincerely congratulate Trump's supporters for their win. I hope that he delivers on everything you were hoping for, and that he doesn't do everything his opponents have feared.

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Netreker0 » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:20 am UTC

cupric wrote:The issue that I do think is worth one more look is the one you hint at above: At what point does a position become so indefensible that attempting to defend it further constitutes a moral failing?


You raise a good question. In a trial, there's a point where your case can be thrown out in summary judgment--if the judge looks the the applicable law, looks at your specific allegations (requiring no supporting evidence), and finds that even if everything you allege is true, you still have no legal cause of action. There's also this thing called Rule 11 (in federal civil court; many states have their own versions), which basically punishes lawyers and their clients for frivolous lawsuits, motions, or other filings. Only a tiny fraction of cases tossed out in summary judgment result in Rule 11 sanctions--meaning there's got to be some level of bad faith, or at least recklessness to the point of willful blindness when it comes to the law or the facts.

There is absolutely a point where a position is absolutely indefensible, morally. But to me, that point is closer to Rule 11 than to summary judgment. I'll call people out for being ill-informed, uncritical, or lazy, and in particular I'll call them out for being those things, and misrepresenting themselves as having been more diligent than they really were. But I'm really reluctant about how often I'm willing to call a position a moral failing, especially since I recognize that I can be just as guilty of having tunnel-vision, or overlooking an important point, or that despite my best efforts I missed some important information.

Certainly such a point exists. Joining the KKK cannot be excused as an honest error in judgement.


No, it certainly can't, although a friend in college made a great argument that during some eras, and in some settings, joining the KKK isn't necessarily a mark of evil or bigotry. I still don't entirely agree with his position, but having lived through a lot more politics since then, I can now understand the temptation to overlook some pretty terrible flaws in order to get something done--and beyond being a hate group and a bona-fide terrorist organization at some point, the Klan also provided a network and a social support structure that many in the South used to get ahead in business or politics. I doubt that any Klan members were non-racists who only pretended to be in order to fit in, and even if there were, I don't believe that "Klan activities" can ever be a morally justified means to any conceivable ends, but I do accept the proposition that for some members, the whole white nationalism thing might not have been their primary motivation.


So my criticism of xkcd 1756 would be unreasonable if it had been drawn by almost anybody else but Randall Munroe. But since it was Randall, I think my criticism is sound. He's capable of doing better due to his intelligence and insight, and he has a responsibility to do better because of his influence. Holding him to that extreme standard is actually one of the highest compliments I could pay.


That's fair, and I think more understandable now that it seems to be absent the level of moral condemnation that I was maybe unfairly reading into your last comment.

Probably Not Make America The Hunger Games


If I ever run for elected office, this will be my campaign button.

Today, my hope is that some people will come to realize that they have slandered those who conditionally supported Donald Trump. I don't expect him to Make America Great, but I do expect him to Probably Not Make America The Hunger Games.


I think you're right that some people have quite unfairly associated all Trump supporters (and for that matter, Trump voters who wouldn't want to call themselves Trump supporters so much as anti-Hillary voters) with the behavior of his most vocal loyalists. I think Hillary (possibly) did the same thing when she pegged the "deplorables" number at one-half of Trump's supporters.

That said, some of the criticism Hillary supporters (and non-Clinton supporters) have tossed at the Trump camp aren't just baseless accusations--they're targeted at specific behavior. The terribly worded basket of deplorables comment was explicitly targeted at xenophobia and bigotry (though again, it may have been unfair to accuse 50% of Trump's camp of belonging to those categories), but it was basically a straw man argument when Trump started running ads accusing Clinton of calling "all working class Americans" deplorable. I don't fault someone merely for voting for a guy, but there are some specific people--the guys who laughed when he made fun of the disabled reporter, who cheered when he joked about "roughing up" the opposition protesters, the guys who physically assaulted political opponents (or who they thought were political opponents)--who I'm not inclined to regard as particular stand-up guys.

I hope Trump is sincerely trying to help this country, and I hope he succeeds in doing so. He's been so vague about his plans I have no clue what he'll do--his position on trade worries me, but I'm ecstatic that he promised to work on infrastructure like Obama failed to do. But I hop that his worst supporters--and really, the worst supporters on any side--continue to be condemned for their bad behavior, because I can't see any circumstances where that would be good for this country.
Last edited by Netreker0 on Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:36 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Mikeski
Posts: 1101
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Mikeski » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:21 am UTC

Ayelis wrote:
cupric wrote:working class whites and other deplorables?

Do you have any idea the context in which the word "deplorables" was used? Why am I asking, obviously not. She wasn't referring to REPUBLICANS, she was referring to the members of the KKK, who publicly proclaimed their support for him, and whom he refused to denounce.

Hillary's exact quote, so we can get the context: "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the 'basket of deplorables'. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it."

Trump got about 60 million votes, so there are 30 million KKK members in the USA?

Gorrammit, this whole election is one giant CityMouse-CountryMouse misunderstanding.


That's certainly true.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5444
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:35 am UTC

cupric wrote:Today, my hope is that some people will come to realize that they have slandered those who conditionally supported Donald Trump. I don't expect him to Make America Great, but I do expect him to Probably Not Make America The Hunger Games.

I've never been one to call anyone who supports Trump a racist/misogynist/etc. But Trump himself is pretty clearly a terrible person in many ways, openly panders to many terrible sentiments, and on top of his personal failings and exploitation of those of others, he has aligned himself with the political faction that has long been pulling America in exactly the wrong direction (and, best case scenario, will merely let that faction get away with the bullshit they've just barely been held back from doing for a decade), so he is a terrible candidate.

The people who support him may have sympathetic motives for doing so; mostly, the people who are sick of politics as usual and want a change that eight years of Democrat rule have failed to deliver. I can understand that motivation. But understanding why someone did something doesn't mean that it is in any way an excusable thing to do, and sympathetic motives or not can still bring deserved condemnation. And in this case, voting for someone who actively enflames the worst sentiments in our fellow countrymen (even if you yourself don't share them) and who will at best accelerate the movement the country has already been doing just because you think the other candidate won't shake things up enough is inexcusable.

Since the thread has already been Godwinned plenty: being a hungry lower-class German doesn't excuse voting for Hitler just because he's going to put food on your table, even if you have no personal hatred of Jews/etc. I get that motive, you need to eat, you're poor, that sucks, yes, something must be done, but that doesn't excuse going along with anything, no matter how horrible it is, just because it might redress your legitimate grievances too, assuming you're even right that it will.

And that's assuming we're talking about the best of the Trump supporters, like the idiots who were pro-Bernie and then switched to Trump when he lost because Hillary is too "establishment". Lumped in with them together under the Trump banner are a bunch of KKK monsters and their ilk, and a bunch of idiots voting against their own best interests out of some kind of confused stupor, which makes it very, very easy to paint Trump supporters on the whole as monsters or else morons, or maybe a little bit of both.

Take for example my own mother, an original-generation hippy and AFAIK lifelong Democrat, now surviving entirely off social programs likely to be cut under Trump, who apparently started hating the Democrats under Obama's reign because "he's a Muslim" and he's "building a Mosque at Ground Zero" and she's a Christian so that cannot fly, and also apparently Hillary is a Satan-worshipping Illuminati because I guess something on the Internet must have said so (literally, she claims to have seen a photo of Hillary and "the other Illuminati" in black robes on some hill in Oregon literally summoning Satan), so she voted Trump this year. What the actual fuck, Mom?
Last edited by Pfhorrest on Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:39 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Netreker0 » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:38 am UTC

Mikeski wrote:Trump got about 60 million votes, so there are 30 million KKK members in the USA?
'

Trump got 60 million votes. Some of his voters would be the first to tell you that this doesn't mean he has 60 million supporters.

User avatar
BytEfLUSh
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:15 am UTC
Location: Sombor, Serbia, Pizza
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby BytEfLUSh » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:50 am UTC

You folks seem too upset over nothing. Yeah, candidate A won presidency in country X while candidate B didn't, in the same country. *yawn* Yeah, so interesting. *yawn*
Like that's gonna change anything.

Relax.

Have a slice of pizza.

Image

Have an entire pizza, because why not? Just be sure to get another one for me.

Image

If you don't like pizza, too bad. I don't like cookies and cakes and chocolate. Get them elsewhere. I like pizza. Randall should make a comic about pizza and how great it is. Pizza will still have the same great taste, no matter who gets elected as a president of country X.

This message has been brought to you by Pizza.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5444
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Nov 10, 2016 2:13 am UTC

Merry Pizzamas?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

cupric
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:29 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby cupric » Thu Nov 10, 2016 2:20 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
cupric wrote:Today, my hope is that some people will come to realize that they have slandered those who conditionally supported Donald Trump. I don't expect him to Make America Great, but I do expect him to Probably Not Make America The Hunger Games.

I've never been one to call anyone who supports Trump a racist/misogynist/etc.


No, you haven't, which is why I haven' taken issue with anything you've written, as far as I can recall. Most of the posts in this thread are useful and reasonable, whether I agree or disagree. I certainly hope I haven't come across as taking up arms against the entire xkcd fan base, or all Hillary supporters.

Even my argument with Randall (which of course he is not even a party to, but whatever), doesn't amount to anything more than, "You should know better." (I amended my initial post precisely because I overstepped in the way I criticized him.)

But I have a much more serious issue with people who have said vile things in this thread about even the most tentative Trump supporters. Those people are a big part of how we got to this point in American politics.

User avatar
BytEfLUSh
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:15 am UTC
Location: Sombor, Serbia, Pizza
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby BytEfLUSh » Thu Nov 10, 2016 2:29 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Merry Pizzamas?

Happy Pizzadays :D

sotanaht
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 2:14 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby sotanaht » Thu Nov 10, 2016 2:33 am UTC

Netreker0 wrote:
Mikeski wrote:Trump got about 60 million votes, so there are 30 million KKK members in the USA?
'

Trump got 60 million votes. Some of his voters would be the first to tell you that this doesn't mean he has 60 million supporters.


What about the people who didn't vote though (over 50% of the eligable population)? I'm sure there are some "supporters" there too
Last edited by sotanaht on Thu Nov 10, 2016 9:13 am UTC, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Flumble » Thu Nov 10, 2016 2:39 am UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
ucim wrote:
Flumble wrote:you seem to fear for an actual dictatorship.
In short: that chance is negligible.

No, it is not negligible. I'd put it at 10%. Yes, we have all this balance of power stuff, but I also watched Trump come from nowhere and defy all odds, becoming the actual Republican nominee for president all while demonstrating his incompetence, drawing instead on the wellsprings of hate. That is extremely powerful. He defied pretty much everything and still got in. I don't know how, but whatever mojo he's using, if elected it will continue, and he could become the Supreme Leader.

There may not be another election.

I'd like to think that the country is robust enough to ward it off, but if that were true, I would have expected it to ward him off long before the nomination. Since that didn't happen, if he gets elected, all bets are off.

The parallels to 1930 Germany, while not exact, are just too close.

Jose

The contentless rhetoric and the types of promises made (including the hatespeech to create an enemy) seem typical of dictators initial elections and the hatespeech being directed at minorities and women are similar to 1930s Germany. And they were both highly charismatic and very talented at picking a population that they could route to support them. Hitler was also seen as a joke internationally and as probably more moderate once he takes office.

I also see huge differences though: the economic situation at the time of the NSDAP getting power was far worse, Hitler had clear ideas and clearly outlined plans to take care of his perceived lesser people and was quite open about them (he even wrote a book about them, although I don't think Trump is the type to write a book), Trump had not really published any plan at all. Hitler was a convicted member of a violent anti-Jewish group, and while Trump has been endorsed by the Klu Klux Klan there's no sign he has been a member or ever took part in their activities. Finally, Hitler, at least in hindsight, seems highly organised and very talented at running an organisation whereas Trump's history strongly suggests he is neither.

Indeed, and the different economic situation isn't just a subtle difference, it makes all the difference in the world: the masses were poor, starving during some years, and virtually all power was in the hands of very few people. Nowadays, (even*) in the US power is chopped up into countless small bits. And most people are well-fed and can afford luxuries, so they won't like radical changes (unless of course you can convince them that they are not well off and that these radical changes will help; still the first part stands).
Another big difference is that the NSDAP had its own paramilitary for protection but especially for intimidating and silencing the opposition since 1921. The worst analogue in the US I've heard of are Clinton's lobbyists and they couldn't even secure a win for her in the elections.
And yet another one is that the government had a special law that allowed the chancellor to write out decrees. I'm willing to bet 1kg of gold (currently about $40,000) right now that this law will never pass in the US. No one (who isn't starving) wants a single person to have the power to write and enact laws alone.

So I cannot conclude anything but: you are irrationally afraid if you think any US president in this day and age can turn the country into a dictatorship.


Pfhorrest wrote:Since the thread has already been Godwinned plenty: being a hungry lower-class German doesn't excuse voting for Hitler just because he's going to put food on your table, even if you have no personal hatred of Jews/etc. I get that motive, you need to eat, you're poor, that sucks, yes, something must be done, but that doesn't excuse going along with anything, no matter how horrible it is, just because it might redress your legitimate grievances too, assuming you're even right that it will.

Of course I'm going to vote Hitler: my family and I are fucking starving to death! Even if he goes as far as exiling or arresting the Jews, I don't care —it's certainly not worse than starving, which is what I'm doing, they are a small minority and it's been made clear time and time again that they are a weird bunch that's only concerned with themselves and they're probably corroborating with the communists too.
As far as I know no one campaigned "Gas the kikes! Race war now!" at the time. And some people and officials may or may not have been pressured into supporting Hitler's party by the aforementioned Sturmabteilung.

*conspiracies aside, there are a couple of players with quite a lot of power, like Facebook, BP, Google, and the likes, but even those are companies lead by numerous of people, so it's hard for such an entity to have radical views.

xtifr
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:38 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby xtifr » Thu Nov 10, 2016 2:57 am UTC

cupric wrote:
Even my argument with Randall (which of course he is not even a party to, but whatever), doesn't amount to anything more than, "You should know better." (I amended my initial post precisely because I overstepped in the way I criticized him.)


Sorry, but even "you should know better" is going too far. Both sides have been spreading outrageous lies. And both sides have been insisting that the claims from their side are true, and the claims from the other side are all lies. Which is deplorable in both cases. And exactly what you were doing! The Clinton Foundation has been audited and exonerated. If you think it's still doing something wrong, then you're claiming that the people who audited it were dishonest. Presumably because you found a source which claims they're dishonest. And you're welcome to believe what you want, but you don't get to say "you should know better" when all the evidence is "he said, she said", and both sides are fully capable of lying or passing along false flag information like Wikileaks has been doing.

But I have a much more serious issue with people who have said vile things in this thread about even the most tentative Trump supporters. Those people are a big part of how we got to this point in American politics.

And I've been called a commie and a traitor and a symptom of everything that's wrong with America for daring to support one of the candidates who ran against Ronald Reagan! And in every election since. For the last eight years, I've been hearing insults even I won't repeat (N----- lover is one of the milder examples.) Saying nasty, bitter, foul things about your political opponents is an American tradition going back well over 200 years! Trying to blame it on one side when both sides have been doing it non-stop for as long as there have been sides is disingenuous at best!

Now, I understand why you might think this is a liberal thing. I certainly used to think it was a conservative thing. But I've realized it's just an American thing. And I strongly advise you to come to the same realization.
"[T]he author has followed the usual practice of contemporary books on graph theory, namely to use words that are similar but not identical to the terms used in other books on graph theory."
-- Donald Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol I, 3rd ed.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5444
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:00 am UTC

cupric wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:I've never been one to call anyone who supports Trump a racist/misogynist/etc.

No, you haven't, which is why I haven' taken issue with anything you've written, as far as I can recall.

Sorry, I didn't mean that to be something personal about you and me. What I meant was: as someone who harbors strong negative opinions blanketly about Trump supporters in general, I don't have to call you personally (or all Trump supporters generally) racist/misogynist/etc, because it's bad enough that you either don't know or don't care enough to oppose someone openly pandering to those who are, or likewise, don't know or don't care about all of the other horrible reasons not to vote for Trump, even if your personal motives aren't so horrible. The starving-Germans-voting-for-Hitler thing was the upshot of that whole post: yes, starving is a legitimate grievance, yes, it deserves a serious redress, no, it doesn't excuse going along with the Nazis.

I don't have to call you a genocidal antisemite for going along with the Nazis. Calling you a Nazi is bad enough, whether you're one for antisemitic reasons or not.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

Stargazer71
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:00 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Stargazer71 » Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:03 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I support secession anywhere at any scale on general principles, but furthermore, for consequentialist considerations (...)


Yeah, so, this has been tried before. It didn't end peacefully.

If California were to actually try it, peace would probably fail for the same reason it did before--who owns the military establishments?

I'm just saying. If this is your method of coming to terms with yesterday's outcome, then all the more power to you. But just know--it ain't gonna happen. Period.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5444
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:32 am UTC

And now that I've compared Trump to Hitler a couple of times, I want to share some thoughts slightly in the other direction.

Earlier tonight I read this list of things Trump plans to do in his first 100 days, and aside from a few things that I already knew and still find as inexcusable as ever (his tax plan and healthcare plan, mostly, and that goddamn stupid wall, and usual Republican things like increased military spending), I had a surprisingly mixed reaction to many of the things. A lot of them were "I don't agree with that policy but I don't strongly object to you holding it on principle" (a lot of the energy and environmental things) or even "I could see that being an arguable position as phrased and I wouldn't reject you just based on that but it's not a very important problem you're trying to solve and your emphasis on it makes me question your motives and also that's a waste of effort more needed elsewhere" (most of the immigration stuff). A few were "ok, exactly as worded that is not so terrible but I expect you don't plan to do what I take those words to exactly mean" (the "repeal unconstitutional executive orders" one, where "unconstitutional" is the important word, and without a proper litmus test for that it's just plainly vindictive). A couple of things were actually good things (pulling out of TPP, really most of the things relating to foreign trade and protecting American workers), and one of those (the one about tariffs) was actually a touch similar to an idea of my own.

So on the whole, it sounds like his plan, as written, is a pretty mainline Republican one, just with a worryingly xenophobic emphasis to the whole thing, and wrapped up in the disgusting package of one despicable human being. But really, it's that mainline Republican stuff that worries me the most. If we had a Democratic congress to oppose him, I wouldn't be too worries. But his tax plan (especially coupled with the boost in military spending) will either bankrupt America, leave people like my mom to die in the street when the consequent budget cuts are made, or else make it much more difficult for people like me to escape her fate when I'm old by shifting the tax burden from those who can bear it down onto people like me. His healthcare plan will leave people like my girlfriend just without health care again, period. And goddamnit do I seriously even need so say how fucking stupid that wall idea is?

So he's probably not going to gas all the nonwhites in the country. I never really thought that was going to be a thing, just that he's giving far too much energy to the kind of people who want that to be a thing. He's probably just going to be about what any Republican candidate would have been with an unobstructing congress, when the rubber hits the road. Which is terrible enough as it is.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5444
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:35 am UTC

Stargazer71 wrote:I'm just saying. If this is your method of coming to terms with yesterday's outcome, then all the more power to you. But just know--it ain't gonna happen. Period.

I didn't bring the topic up, I was just commenting on the ongoing conversation about it. I did conclude by saying that California leaving would be pragmatically a bad idea, for me in California. But if Texas or whoever really wants to go, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Good riddance, and my condolences to the liberals stuck with you there.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

Stargazer71
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:00 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Stargazer71 » Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:54 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
Stargazer71 wrote:I'm just saying. If this is your method of coming to terms with yesterday's outcome, then all the more power to you. But just know--it ain't gonna happen. Period.

I didn't bring the topic up, I was just commenting on the ongoing conversation about it. I did conclude by saying that California leaving would be pragmatically a bad idea, for me in California. But if Texas or whoever really wants to go, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Good riddance, and my condolences to the liberals stuck with you there.


Fair enough.

I find it bitterly ironic though that a lot of the people who are serious about it seem to be the same ones who were espousing "the sanctity of the democratic process" after the third debate.

So who knew. A bunch of liberals are uncompromising hypocrites. :roll:

User avatar
ManaUser
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:28 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby ManaUser » Thu Nov 10, 2016 5:47 am UTC

Regarding election methods (from a page or two back) I really like approval voting. Mainly for its extreme simplicity of both concept and implementation. It works just like the standard "pick one" method, only you can pick any number and vote for all of them equally. It still invites some compromises, but it would give non-duopoly candidates a better shot than what we have now, and it doesn't suffer from the weird issue with IVR where a vote can ever hurt a candidate.

User avatar
azule
Saved
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:45 pm UTC
Location: The land of the Golden Puppies and Rainbows

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby azule » Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:58 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:My state would easily make a powerful country unto itself, so I wouldn't even be terribly upset if we broke away from the USA... except for the fact that that would make the remaining USA far more fascist/reactionary ("conservative" is too nice of a word) and probably the enemy of my new country, which would be bad for the rest of the country but even more so for me.

A defense treaty with our neighbour to the north would help. I think leaving in a peaceful manner could work, like what gets proposed in the U.K. with its countries.

I don't know if the rest of the country gets more fascistic. I would hope it evens out without the presence of California as the liberal monkey wrench to blame. Different countries might do red states better.
Image

If you read this sig, post about one arbitrary thing you did today.

I celebrate up to six arbitrary things before breakfast.
Time does drag on and on and contain spoilers. Be aware of memes.

Karantalsis
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 11:22 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Karantalsis » Thu Nov 10, 2016 9:18 am UTC

Speaking about Freedom all the time, and particularly with Trump as being a representative thereof, confuses me. I'm not American and as an outsider, your country looks among the least free in general, and with most restricted in rights in particular, in the developed world. Certainly less free than the UK, Germany, Portugal and many other European nations. The more I read of it the more I think the word freedom is being used to mean totally different things.

From my perspective (a left-wing European) it appears that many Americans want the freedom to impinge on the rights of others. To me that doesn't appear to be freedom as it restricts one, or, usually, more people to increase the benefit to another, so is, in fact, a reduction in freedom. If everyone has the right to exploit each other in such a way as to restrict access to transport, say, but only a minority have the means to do that, then they restrict the rights of the majority. If that right to restrict access to transport is abrogated by a governmental authority that is an increase, not a decrease, in rights and freedoms.

I can see how these two definitions of freedom both make sense, but I can only see one that is moral and good of the two. I might be (and am likely to be) misunderstanding your positions, though, as I think the American culture, and as such political mentality, is so far away from the rest of the developed world that it is actively confusing.

Also with respect to this:

sotanaht wrote:Batshit insane laws like the ones requiring kindergarten bus stops to be plowed before the roads leading to them (because how are the busses OR the kids OR the plows going to get there, idiots), immigration policy designed to destroy the nation "so that the white majority can never again be a majority", historical revisionism BY LAW intended to destroy the nations identity, and minorities allowed to get away with murder AND WORSE because any act against them would be racist.

He who controls the past controls the future, and he who controls the present controls the past --Orwell


I asked a Swedish friend of mine. A preschool teacher FYI and her reply was:

Swedish Teacher wrote:We don't have buses for preschools, and there's no such thing as kindergartens here. If they live far from the preschool they usually get driven by parents cause even poor people in Sweden are middle class by US standards. And that second part is just pure racism. There is the possibility that whites won't be majority in the future, but if that was the case, it'd been through "merging" with immigrants and I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing cause I don't see race war as a thing.

Minorities do not get away with murder or worse though, but yeah, I don't believe the legal system is perfect in any way. I am not aware of any laws that let immigrants get away with murder. Further on, they'd be sent back to their country if they committed crimes.

Didn't zimmerman get away with killing a black kid?


With regards to the historical revisionism by law thing are you talking about the Rami trial from 1989? Or something else?

User avatar
somitomi
Posts: 754
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:21 pm UTC
Location: can be found in Hungary
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby somitomi » Thu Nov 10, 2016 10:28 am UTC

BytEfLUSh wrote:If you don't like pizza, too bad.

Listen to some vinyl, on the house.
stroboszkop.gif
stroboszkop.gif (814.23 KiB) Viewed 7627 times

Enjoy some music and be mesmerised by a rotating plastic disk.
Avatar from Freddino
Image
―◯‐◯ FG Discord◯‐◯―

Spaceman_Spiff
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:47 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Spaceman_Spiff » Thu Nov 10, 2016 11:24 am UTC

Karantalsis wrote:From my perspective (a left-wing European) it appears that many Americans want the freedom to impinge on the rights of others. To me that doesn't appear to be freedom as it restricts one, or, usually, more people to increase the benefit to another, so is, in fact, a reduction in freedom. If everyone has the right to exploit each other in such a way as to restrict access to transport, say, but only a minority have the means to do that, then they restrict the rights of the majority. If that right to restrict access to transport is abrogated by a governmental authority that is an increase, not a decrease, in rights and freedoms.


I have no idea what you are talking about here. What rights are being impinged? You talk about transportation, but we do have public transportation here.

Swedish Teacher wrote:We don't have buses for preschools, and there's no such thing as kindergartens here. If they live far from the preschool they usually get driven by parents cause even poor people in Sweden are middle class by US standards. And that second part is just pure racism. There is the possibility that whites won't be majority in the future, but if that was the case, it'd been through "merging" with immigrants and I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing cause I don't see race war as a thing.

Minorities do not get away with murder or worse though, but yeah, I don't believe the legal system is perfect in any way. I am not aware of any laws that let immigrants get away with murder. Further on, they'd be sent back to their country if they committed crimes.

Didn't zimmerman get away with killing a black kid?


I Googled poverty in Sweden and the first link was this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/09/10/america-has-less-poverty-than-sweden/
The last paragraph says: "we can definitely say that the poor in the US and the poor in Sweden have about the same lifestyles and levels of consumption."

As for Zimmerman, has your friend seen these photos, and heard the witness statement (per wikipedia)?
The only eyewitness to the end of the confrontation stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and punching him, while Zimmerman was yelling for help. This witness, who identified himself as "John", stated that "the guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911". He went on to say that when he got upstairs and looked down, "the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."
(pics below, for those that want to see them)
Spoiler:
Image
Image

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Zamfir » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:19 pm UTC

This seems to be the original story about the snow plowing.
Spoiler:
http://www.thelocal.se/20131211/snow-plowing-should-be-gender-equal-greens
In Karlskoga, central Sweden, the local government last year shifted the priorities of its snow removal practices to put more emphasis on areas often frequented by women. The move didn't incur any extra cost and has produced promising results.

In the municipality's old system, key roads were cleared first, followed by areas where men typically worked such as construction areas, and lastly areas used by pedestrians and cyclists.

See a video of Karlskoga's changes (in Swedish)

Authorities explained that the system did not intentionally discriminate against anyone, rather that it was simply being carried out "as it always has been".

After review, Karlskoga prioritized day cares, where parents usually go first in the morning, followed by areas around the largest work places regardless of gender, followed by schools, and then the main roads. As a result, the municipality noted that it had become more accessible for everyone during and after snowfall, particularly children.

tl;dr: a small town in Sweden decided to look at gender patterns of road use, and found that snow plowing tends to start with roads most heavily used by men. Probably because they didn't change the schedule in decades, when women stayed home to look after the kids. So they changed to schedule to start with the roads to daycare centres.

Naturally, this caused complete outrage in some American parts of the internet.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Flumble » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:46 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
Karlskoga prioritized day cares ... areas around the largest work places ... schools, and then the main roads.

What the literal fuck does that have to do with "gender equality" or "prioritizing for women"?

It's outrageous to attach such politics/labels when all they did was optimise the snow ploughing for usage patterns. Even if this change is exclusively incited by someone shouting "the ploughing schedule is sexist!", the result is simply optimised for usage patterns. :x

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Thesh » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:56 pm UTC

Spaceman_Spiff wrote:
I Googled poverty in Sweden and the first link was this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/09/10/america-has-less-poverty-than-sweden/


Percent of population below half of median income is a bad measure of poverty. Seriously, here's two scenarios: Country one has median income at 50% of mean income, country two has median income at 40% of mean income, and in country one a third of the population is below 50% of median income, country two has one quarter of the country is below 50% of median income. So for country one, we know 66% of the population makes over 25% of the per-capita GDP, and in country two we know that 75% of the population makes over 20% of GDP - the bottom 25% of both of those populations could have identical incomes for all we know, just we know that the next 25%-50% are better off in country one than they are in country two, and the top 50%-100% are slightly worse off than country one and country two.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Zamfir » Thu Nov 10, 2016 2:03 pm UTC

What the literal fuck does that have to do with "gender equality" or "prioritizing for women"?


Afacit, they had a working group that was looking at gender issues in the municipality. The working group noticed the pattern that roads towards heavily male jobs got cleaned first, and then people changed the pattern.

So they didn't attach the label afterwards, it was there from the start. Strikes me as about the most clear-cut value of such a group - look at issues from a different direction, to find ingrained patterns that no one questioned before.

bondsbw
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:37 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby bondsbw » Thu Nov 10, 2016 5:11 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Percent of population below half of median income is a bad measure of poverty.


Percentages are meaningless without hard numbers. A country where 100% of people live at the median wage seems like a great idealistic society until you realize we're just talking about the island Tom Hanks was stranded on in Castaway.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cougar Allen, mscha and 92 guests