Please argue! And thank you for not slurring :)
> Would you be willing to articulate your argument for Trump here?
I supported Obama. I always considered myself a liberal. I support gay marriage, I support gun control. I support universal health care. I support decent welfare and a safety net.
As a programmer, the formative moment for my Trump support came when a prolific open-source developer was forced to leave the community because he would not accept a trivial change to the documentation to change gendered pro-nouns to non-gendered pro-nouns. His reason was he didn't want to mess up the revision history with a trivial change like that. And he was from South America where nouns are all gendered anyway. But one of the big companies came out and said that "they would have fired him". http://www.dailydot.com/news/github-gendered-pronoun-debate/
This was non-sensical to me, and was bullying. But I soon realised that this overly sensitive behaviour had pervaded all walks of life and all aspects of society and I soon discovered the cliched political correctness run wild with third-wave feminist bloggers, social justice, Black Lives Matter protesting of clearly non-racially motivated attacks, and that was it.
Its ironic that my biggest reason for voting Trump is to stop the bullying from the left - who are protesting against...bullying (sexism, misogyny, racism).
One side is for freedom of speech, the other side is for controlling what you can say.
One side thinks controlling what you can say will be abused and unfairly target people, the other side thinks that freedom of speech is a means of control by the entitled.
There's a calm, complex, and nuanced debate to be had here to find a middle ground.
But unfortunately there is no Liberal ready to accept that this is the debate that needs to be had.
The alt-right, the new right, the Trump supporters - we are ready and waiting to have this debate...
1. The situation you describe is fundamentally about freedom of speech vs the right not be be offended. Trump is not an advocate of freedom of speech and doesn't believe in a free press. In my estimation this is much more dangerous than what you describe.
2. This doesn't even register on my scale of the pros and cons of Trump. The Presidency is not about who decides who gets to say what to whom, that is a matter for society at large. As has been described elsewhere in this thread the damage he will do (if he enacts even half of his platform) to immigrant and womens rights, America's standing in the world and free trade will outweigh a hundredfold any small gains you get from a backlash against political correctness.
But in four years will you admit you're wrong if it doesn't turn out to be the case?
No. It will go on and on and on.
I feel I respond to all this fear mongering constantly:
> immigrant rights
Immigrants are better off with stronger borders. People don't have to suspect them of being illegal. Has that occurred to anyone on the left?
> womens rights?
Trump: I oppose the use of government funds to pay for abortion.
A supreme court judge may be an issue though, but it is unlikely to reverse policy.
> America's standing in the world
It is bad at the moment.
> free trade
Both candidates oppose TPP. Canada wants to talk about NAFTA. Free trade destroys local jobs.
On immigrant rights, maybe you're right, maybe all Trump wants to do is secure the borders but he certainly hasn't done much to discourage the nasty parts of his base form thinking otherwise.
On abortion rights you're taking a massive gamble with a hard won and important right. If you're comfortable doing that in the name of marginal free speak then that's for you to decide. I'm not.
The perception of Obama abroad is pretty good still. I live in the UK so I can tell you that he's perceived as one of the few grown ups on the world political stage.
They both may be opposing TPP but only Trump was talking about putting a large tariff on Chinese steel. Irrespective of the issues with global trade, trade wars are definitely bad for everyone involved.
Do you not think that the elections showed that identity politics do NOT matter, instead national politics matter more?
I am reminded of a common quip, which I am going to modify:
First they came for the word nigger, and I stopped using it because it was hurtful to black people. Then they came for the word faggot and I stopped using it because it was hurtful to gay people. Then they came for the word retarded and I stopped using it because it was hurtful to disabled people. Then they came after the words he and she, and I was called a bigot, racist, xenophobe for not bending my knee to "they".
Its such a waste of energy. There are real problems and its such a diversion. I think its social justice bikeshedding. Its easy and they think they are making a difference.
However I just wanted to compliment you on your seemingly boundless reserves of patience while still taking the time to respond to questions.
I've personally taken a silent stance on everything until I know enough to have a good discussion about things. It has been refreshing to read a perspective, your's, which I don't ever remember seeing before the vote.
If only the third-wave feminist bloggers, social justice warriors, black lives matters activists, etc, had kept their mouths shut! It's good they were shown there are repercussions to saying whatever you like.
You see how here you are saying that I am in favour of sacrificing womens, minorities, lgbt, etc. rights.
You see how it is basically saying: You are are a sexist, misogynist, racist?
Why don't you ask me what I think about those issues? Why don't you ask me my views on how they are best improved, and how the current approach is bad? Why don't we have a debate on the effects of introducing female quotas in workplaces. Why don't we have a debate on illegal immigration?
You know why? Because before we start talking about illegal immigration, you will be calling me a "xenophobe" for not using the correct terminology of "undocumented immigrant" or something like that. Its tiring. But I'm always up for it.
> If only the third-wave feminist bloggers, social justice warriors, black lives matters activists, etc, had kept their mouths shut! It's good they were shown there are repercussions to saying whatever you like.
Sadly its true. If you reach too far, and attack everyone who doesn't hold your viewpoint, there are repercussions.
If people don't agree with your approach, you make an argument about why it will result in a better society. You don't label people sexist and racist, and not worth speaking to. Its childish. And this election was a referendum on this.
You have to make logical arguments and engage in debate. Your ideas have to be able to be challenged.
We all want to help, but no one wants to listen.
You didn't vote for your views, you voted for Trump. You had to believe that whatever would result from a Trump election was at least balanced by your desire to show the left the consequences of their free speech, yes?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but while you personally may want to have a debate about illegal immigration, the person who you support to represent you (Trump) does not want to debate. He just wants to make a sweeping change without anyone in his path.
Oh cry me a river. It's starting to look like your only debating tactic is "stop oppressing me".
You said it yourself that you voted for quoting "a racist, sexist, misogynist, xenophobe" because "One side is for freedom of speech, the other side is for controlling what you can say."
How is floodyberrys post not a fair representation of your views?
There was just one candidate in this election that wants to control what you can say. And it wasn't Hillary.
“We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace, or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.”
> This was non-sensical to me, and was bullying.
I agree that it was bullying and that it shouldn't happen. But again, one side wants to fight against online bullying and the other side thrives on it. Just check the Trump's twitter account if you want to see what bullying looks like.
On one side you're saying you're all for free speech, on the other hand you're against the people exercising the right. Especially people you don't agree with (like Black Lives Matter). This all just sounds like a front to silence people who are pushing society in direction you don't want it to go (social justice things like fighting racism, sexism, homophobia, ...).
I don't agree Trump here.
But I am not talking about the candidates.
I am talking about BLM, SJWs, and Feminists vs. everyone else.
With a racist, sexist, misogynist, xenophobe in the White House now, they must now show prove that his actions reflect their fears...or realise that they were misguided and tone it down.
This is the victory for Trump supporters. The man himself is but a vessel :p
> Just check the Trump's twitter account if you want to see what bullying looks like.
You can always block. Everyone defines bullying differently, and for this reason, every person can control what they see online.
Trump is by far the bigger victim. Look at all the relentless and repeated attacks on his appearance by liberals. I have never seen anyone chastise a fellow liberal over an attack on Trump's appearance.
When everyone can accuse everyone else of bullying...where do you draw the line?
> on the other hand you're against the people exercising the right.
My beef is with irrationality. I'm a natural altruist and intrinsically want to help people. But its frustrating when they don't listen and aren't willing to have a fair and reasoned debate.
So I am not against them exercising their right. I just want to help. The left may produce a good candidate in the future who I want to vote for, but if they are accusing everyone of being racist and sexist, if they are cheating in election debates, if the DNC remains corrupt, then they will continue to lose election like they have.
But as a Trump supporter, I don't have to fight for a rationale debate, the ball is not in their court as they have lost complete control of the government, and hopefully will come back to the debate floor when they realise they need to, in order to get there next guy (girl, et al.) elected.
> This all just sounds like a front to silence people who are pushing society in direction you don't want it to go (social justice things like fighting racism, sexism, homophobia, ...).
> racism, sexism, homophobia,
I don't want any of these things either :D
I just think their approach is wrong. But before I can say why...I am called a racist.
You may have grievances (legitimate or otherwise) but you have to weigh up the pros and cons.
In 1920s Italy you might have been daily frustrated by the poor reliability of the railways but that didn't mean that voting for Mussolini would have been a good idea overall.
Also, not that I ascribe this to you, personally, but apparently 22% of Trump's supporters think he would start a Nuclear War. I'm struggling to understand what pros they think would outweigh that particular con.
Hillary wants to change the constitution to take away your 1st amendment right to make and distribute "Hillary: The Movie".
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-citize...
But I also don't think that liberals and "SJW" are controlling what we say.
I was just trying to point out the double standard in the post I was addressing.
And the freedom of speech you so vigorously protect was to reveal details of a B-List celebrities sexual activities. Where is the moral courage on that?
Yes Freedom of Speech is paramount among our rights, but it's not inviolately absolute. The Gawker guys were scum but that's not why they lost their lawsuit. They lost their lawsuit because a jury felt their actions lacked news value and were a violation of privacy.
showing a sex tape and refusing to remove it (which is why hogan was suing gawker) from your site is not freedom of press. if it was, the leakage of celebrity pics (also known as 'the fappening') would be fine, no?
also, gawker outed thiel, which is bullshit. people should come out when they are ready, not when a yellow-paged blog decides.
also, let's change genders and say gawker not only leaked but refused to remove jennifer aniston's sex tape from their site. would you call that freedom of press?
It is a slippery slope. No one feels too bad about a sex tape getting taken down, but cases like this ensure that journalists will have to self-censor what they publish and err on the conservative side or else risk their entire publication being closed. This has a chilling effect on investigative journalism.
You think that the right-wing parties are more wealthy than the left-wing parties?
You are trying to confirm the "trump is bad" case. But when it is shown that Clinton is the same, and liberals are the same...we have to argue on a case-by-base basis...which is not as easy as calling out conservatives that you don't like.
This is called bias.
Here is the exact quote I responded to: "Its ironic that my biggest reason for voting Trump is to stop the bullying from the left"
I always use to say "I could never vote for the Republicans because of this".
So I support most the left-wing policies. But mostly it is a vote against the progressive movement, and the Bernie faction. And corruption is the ultimate destructive force in politics and the Clinton's oozed it.
I think that the more time that passes since the hey days of communism, people forget how terrible it was, and we start heading back towards it.
The problem is that Capitalism doesn't care about people. It is a system, and the worth of commodities and even people is determined by the market. People lose their jobs because either automation can replace them, or the job can be done cheaper elsewhere. Either way, that is capitalism, and if you support capitalism then that that is the inevitable result. You can try and restrict the impact by reducing global trade, but even if you built a wall around the USA and didn't import anything, as technology gets more and more efficient there will still be fewer and fewer jobs in the USA.
What's your proposal for people who can't get jobs because there aren't enough of them?
