This comment reeks of victim blaming. Nobody who voted for Trump and Pence should be allowed to escape being held accountable for what they support. If their "economic anxiety" was bad enough that they can ignore the rights of LGBT people and religious minorities, then they are all the more guilty. Those people were never centrists and knew exactly who they voted for.
You focus so much on holding people accountable rather than prevention. Lay off seeking justice for a while, try to seek order instead. Listen to why people voted Trump rather than call them all bigots and justify it with "they knew what they were getting into".
As a european who truly despises Trump: This idea that you're too busy blaming people for being racist to spend time listening to them is honestly frightening.
One day perhaps in your lifetime, there'll be a candidate, populist like Trump but with extreme-left ideals and you'll be duped, just like the people you refuse to listen to were duped, because when there was time to learn you chose to be vengeful instead.
Dude, I'm also European and I've spent 25 years listening to and debating with conservative people - in person, on the net, at academic gatherings and many other places. I have studied a wide variety of conservative philosophies and social groups. At what point are you OK with me drawing some conclusions, even temporary working conclusions that I might have to alter later?
When I hear comments like this, the overriding impression I have is that thinking about this stuff is rather new to you and you are hesitating out of uncertainty. But it's a mistake to assume that people with stronger opinions than your own have not put in the hours to think through the issues.
Valid, but I think it comes mostly from the loudest people being the ones that haven't done so. They're the ones that need attention, because they're driving so many personal attacks (which largely make people more extreme, not less).
As always, there are exceptions (like you). Which is broadly what the comment was claiming - Trump voters are not 100% made up of nazis, in essence.
Germany wasn't 100% made up of Nazi supporters either. That didn't stop disaster.
A Trump voter that votes Trump because of some economic point also votes in support of all the other policies that Trump stands for and so carries fractional responsibility.
Sure. But it doesn't mean we condemn all Germans. Other threads in here are basically suggesting we confront every German we see about Hitler's atrocities. What will that accomplish?
edit: a good chunk of this is that all this sets up "damned if you do, damned if you don't, double-damned if you choose the winning side". This doesn't encourage more people to get involved, it just drives them away from trying. That's the exact opposite of what we need.
The present day generation Germans is so far removed that that would make no sense. But it would have made sense prior to approximately 1935 or so.
Even then it probably was too late but who knows, maybe there would have been a way to push back against the brownshirts.
Historians are not in agreement on this subject, there is a school of thought that the whole thing might have been averted.
The main culprit (the treaty of Versailles) was a 'winner takes all' arrangement that sowed the seeds for WWII, Hitler merely tapped in to the resentment that was already there and managed to wreck Europe for two generations as a result of that. In the end Germany ended up much worse than where they started as a result of their 'Germany First' policy.
I think the main lesson learned here is that if the spoils from globalization aren't divided in a fair way there will be a huge backlash (predictable), unfortunately turning the clock back will result in yet another backlash.
These pendulum swings are way too fast and violent for society to adapt without damage.
So take the 1935 Germans. Confront them. Rant about how their decisions destroyed so much. Visibly encourage others to do the same.
Now what do you expect them to do when they're offered the chance to vote for two new candidates, neither of which they approve of? Personally, I expect them to run the other way, rather than voting.
To late to correct that one, yes. But not too late to prevent the next one - that's what I'm arguing about. I'm saying that this sets up a negative bias for doing anything early enough when controversy pops up, which is at best not beneficial.
Yes, indeed. This goes for any course correction, the longer you wait the more extreme the correction will have to be until they are accurately described as 'violent'. The French Revolution comes to mind (not that that was such an example of exclusively positive change but it definitely was change).
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're saying here. Is this a reply to me or to the parent comment? Where do you see me make assumptions about how strong anyone's opinions are?
This idea that you're too busy blaming people for being racist to spend time listening to them is honestly frightening.
When I call people out for being racist I assure it is not for want of having listened to them first. I'm absolutely in favor of listening to people, but there are also times when you need to firmly declare your opposition to their ideas and your intent to obstruct them.
Not all ideologies are morally equivalent, and I am opposed to any ideology that seeks to limit or reduce the rights of individual people in order to promote compliance with some abstract moral standard as opposed to some utilitarian one where you can demonstrate a harm exceeding a putative benefit.
Your comment is eerily reminiscent of this quote from MLK's Letter From Birmingham Jail:
"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
I haven't read the thread closely enough to be sure. Perhaps the MLK quote was particularly provocative in context but I didn't see anything outright uncivil about what the commenter said. Even if it was, though, it doesn't mean that you get to break HN's rules. I'm sure you can do much better than "fucking enraging".
I get why swearing is not (and shouldn't be) the default tone on HN but is that really the issue here? I didn't insult hsod.
Meanwhile, I was equated with somebody tacitly approving of segregation. Because I'm telling someone else that it's more productive to understand why this is happening than look for retribution.
Civility is about more than tone. hsod's tone was fine but his comment certainly wasnt; my tone was harsh but I maintain it was appropriate for the kind of accusations I was replying to.
my tone was harsh but I maintain it was appropriate
It wasn't, by the site's guidelines and patient explanation by a moderator. These aren't laws of physics, just the norms of the venue. Would you 'maintain' it's appropriate to show up at a stranger's funeral waving a lighter and yelling 'Freebird'? Same thing.
I understand you're view point but what is their to listen to? There are people that support republicans against their own interests, they are also amenable xenophobic rhetoric. They largely cling to a fantasy of America that was only close to being "reality" about a decade before 1960. They are skeptical if the rest if the world and think somehow we wil revert this country back to an early twentieth century industrial revolution ... Ok, but that is all nonsense. I know that's not nice to say but that's how it is, so what are we listening to? If it's about strengthening social safety nets, better education, fights for "living wage," well, um that's not Paul Ryan or Donald Trump.
I see this "support republicans against their own interests" line so often around here. This ignores feelings of integrity, pride, shame, sin, ethics, morality, and self-worth. One's self interests include feeling that one is respectable and just.
People might accept welfare, but that doesn't mean they feel OK about it. Many people, conservatives especially, want jobs. People want to feel that they support a family, without help. Poor conservatives don't seek to tax the rich because that would feel unethical.
So yes, life is tough for these people, but they really don't want to feel that it is also unfair. They don't want to cheat, they don't want others to cheat, and they don't want the government helping anybody to cheat. An equal chance is demanded, but an equal outcome is at best a nice-to-have. (possibly undesirable because the non-lazy should be rewarded)
There is no lack of understanding here. It's a different value system.
It's a little foolish to think that over half the country is as xenophobic as the bottom tier of the trump demographic.
I'm not telling you to listen to the xenophobic demographic, but to listen to those who are willing to disregard their moral limits in order not to vote for the other side.
Trump has gotten votes from wildly diverse demographics. He's hijacked two parties he doesn't belong to just to win the election and he did win the election. Think of analyzing this as a post-mortem: What went wrong, why did people vote for somebody like this, etc.
Anyway, what I was trying to communicate (and seem to have failed to) in my earlier comment was that like in any post-mortem it's pointless to try and point fingers and assign blame. What good is "holding people accountable" going to do, other than strenghten the divide?
Come on, banning Muslims was a _key campaign point_. He talked about it all the time during the primaries and the general election. So yes, I do hold people accountable for voting for this.
Every candidate has had key points that I've fundamentally disagreed with. And taken actions I fundamentally disagree with, which is even worse than campaign talking-points. Should I vote?
Edit: to be clear, I do think Trump is (and was) much further down the extreme side than others have been in recent history. But what you're advocating for does not make sense.
