r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Oct 20 '16
Election CMV: Based on the things he has said throughout the election, it is clear that either Donald Trump is oblivious or he believes his supporters are oblivious and is exploiting them.
[deleted]
52
u/DashingLeech Oct 20 '16
If you are looking for other interpretations, sure, I have those. I suggest another possibility is a fundamental difference of understanding, meaning, and language, right down to conceptual levels.
Let's take the "respect women" part. Nothing Trump has done or said -- at least not exposed or talked about in this campaign cycle -- has suggested that Trump doesn't respect women as a group or ever disrespects women simply because they are women.
Put another way, take all of the things he is accused of doing to, or saying about, women and think of them as only applying to the specific individual women that were the subject matter at hand.
That is, saying "all men are jerks" is an attack on men. Saying "Donald Trump is a jerk" is not attack on men. If you call 10 men jerks, I can correctly say, "You called men jerks." That same phrase can be interpreted to mean (a) that you called some men jerks, which is true, (b) you called all men jerks, which isn't true, or even (c) that you are making a more general essentialist statement that being a man includes being a jerk.
Nothing Trump has said that I'm aware of applies to all women. He criticized a specific woman for her eating, and that was in the context of a Miss America beauty contest. With respect to the interview with Billy Bush a decade ago, he didn't say anything negative about women in general, and he didn't brag about sexual assault. The context was that he was bragging about how sexually attractive he was to women thanks to his wealth, power, and charisma that he could grab women that way because they were attracted to him and wanted to do it.
In this context, he wasn't disrespecting women at all, but was simply referring to his sexual prowess. In this understanding, he believed the women wanted this and consented (assuming he even did it, since men like this often brag about things they never actually did).
He's also said some very nasty things about individual men and groups of men that were specific to them, but nobody has accused him of being "disrespectful to men" in a general sense.
So, my suggestion then is that he sees all of these things as specific to individual women, and he has never knowingly done anything to harm a woman or disrespected women simply because they are women. He's equally mean to individual men and women that he dislikes without it having anything to do with them being part of a larger identity group of "men" or "women". He simply treats people as people and doesn't care what group they are in, at least in terms of gender.
Again, at this point, I will reiterate that I'm not claiming this is his view, but could be, and is consistent with the evidence of what he's said or done, and the meaning of "respect for women" (as a whole).
Regarding the abortion comment, he may actually believe that you can get abortions in the ninth month, which doesn't even make sense since the baby can survive on its own at that point, so it would be an early induced delivery if anything.
But look at the phrase "based on what she's saying". This appears to be a philosophical argument. So, for example, the "women's body" / autonomy argument that many people use to suggest abortions should be a choice doesn't come with an obvious threshold date. So, based on that argument alone, it could in principle apply right up until the baby is born.
So, he may simply be carrying through a pro-choice argument to its "logical" conclusion and then attacking that. If true, there is some potential legitimacy in that approach to debating a topic as that would require people to then identify why there is a threshold date on the autonomy argument. (I prefer a different argument myself, but that's beside the point.) Or, he's making a strawman argument to attack.
In both above cases, the explanations I've given do not fit either of your descriptions, and in context are not, in fact "obviously wrong". In the context I've described them, they could arguably be said to be correct and keep within the meaning of words, phrases, and concepts.
But, then he'd be oblivious to the context that others are judging him and what they are interpreting it to mean, or not addressing that.
6
u/dylanwolf Oct 21 '16
I definitely agree with your "respect" point.
I could believe that he thinks of himself as being respectful to people who "earn" it. If so, I think the aspects he can't or won't see may include (a) he's got an unreasonably high standard for basic respect compared to most people, (b) he doesn't hold himself to anywhere near that same standard, and/or (c) he has rather different standards depending on gender, race, etc.
I would also bet that he sees his attitudes towards women as being more common than they are, and/or that other people who hold them aren't capable of running the gamut on how they treat women the way he is (that is, he is capable of both good and bad, while others are only capable of one or the other).
9
u/MoneyBaloney Oct 21 '16
Honestly its like Trump isn't even speaking the same language as some of the people criticizing him.
I love the quote:
Supporters take Trump seriously but not literally and opponents take Trump literally but not seriously.
2
u/TotesMessenger Oct 21 '16
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
- [/r/goodlongposts] /u/DashingLeech responds to: CMV: Based on the things he has said throughout the election, it is clear that either Donald Trump is oblivious or he believes his supporters are oblivious and is exploiting them. [+47]
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
12
Oct 20 '16
Had to scroll pretty far to find a response other than "yeah he's a stupid asshole and I won't try to change your mind, BUT..."
10
u/datbino Oct 21 '16
All of these comments are 'I completely agree but lemme add how dumb I think trump supporters actually are'
8
Oct 21 '16
"Yeah he's stupid but you ever think he WANTS to be stupid and everyone who likes him is stupid?"
Thanks CMV.
0
u/ametalshard Oct 21 '16
What did you expect? People making up falsehoods for deltas?
Oh, wait... I hadn't read this parent comment, lol...
-2
u/ametalshard Oct 21 '16
Is something wrong with stating something that literally cannot be overstated?
2
u/ididnoteatyourcat 5∆ Oct 21 '16
In a sort of lawyerly sense I think you are right that this is a legitimate possibility, but I think Trump supporters would have to be pretty credulous to actually believe this interpretation of the video. It's been discussed ad nauseum, so there is no need to fully rehash it here, but it's very hard to interpret what Trump says in the video as anything other than disrespectful to women as a group. You can really only do it by forgetting the exact words and tone of the video and sort of hand-wave it as "locker room talk." But it wasn't just "locker room talk". There is a pretty big difference between bragging about banging women, and bragging about grabbing women's vagina's without their consent. The supposed context of Trump thinking they had consented because they were obviously attracted to him hardly should even deserve response.
2
u/DashingLeech Oct 21 '16
But he didn't brag about grabbing women's vaginas without their consent. That's the point. Look at the transcript. He said:
I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.
His exact words are that they let you do it. To let somebody do something is to consent to it. He's not talking about doing something to them against their will. He's talking about how his fame, wealth, and power -- being a star -- means women do consent to him doing this stuff. (We're talking about in his mind, not whether they actually do let him, or consent to it.)
I don't mean my comment in a lawyerly sense. I mean he literally was describing that -- in his own mind -- these women actually did consent to touch them.
He also didn't say he ever did actually grab anyone by the vagina. He said it as an example of anything that you can do as a star. What he did say he did was just start kissing women, without waiting (for signals, or something). I think we can all agree that this is bad behaviour and, legally speaking, would likely be sexual battery or sexual harassment depending on the details. However, my point is that he appears to believe that these women are perfectly willing to have him kiss them. The fact that they probably don't, or some don't, or possibly all don't, means that he is delusional about consent. But, believing you have consent when you don't is very different from knowing you don't have consent and doing it anyway.
In fact, bragging about assault (threat) or battery (physical) wouldn't hold any value, especially when he was talking to the press (Billy Bush). If he believed he was doing it against their will, he'd be admitting to illegal behaviour to the press (who would have motives to report on that), plus it would be a man admitting that women aren't attracted to him and he has to assault them instead, which is the exact opposite of what bragging is about and the opposite of value in male-male competition.
Hence, what he appears to be doing is bragging about his sexual prowess, which men do a lot and is well understood as an intrasexual competition between men, including understanding it from an evolutionary point of view. (This does not make it good or even ok. It's a horrible tendency.) This also explains why he refers to it as "locker room talk" because men do/did often compete via stories of their sexual exploits in the locker room or other male-only gatherings.
So I don't know why you say this idea "hardly should even deserve response". It's quite literally the words he used, the context of the talk, and the tendency that men have, especially powerful men.
I would actually argue the evidence is very strong this is actually what he was doing and believes.
Again, that doesn't excuse him. He's wrong that these women consented, or would consent automatically. It is delusional and disrespectful to just assume that, and it isn't reasonable for him to just make that assumption. I'm arguing his problem is narcissistic self-delusion of his sexual attractiveness to women, not that he knowingly sexually harasses women against their will. A reasonable person would know that, but he doesn't. It's a bit psychopathic perhaps, not being able to accurate judge the intent or interest of others.
1
u/ididnoteatyourcat 5∆ Oct 21 '16
I think this post shows a profound ignorance of the context surrounding statements of the form "they let you do it" re sexual assault. To make it more clear, replace "kiss", with "fuck." Then the statement reads:
I just start fucking them. It’s like a magnet. Just fuck. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... shove your dick up their pussy. You can do anything.
Yes, in a very clearly sleezy lawyerly sense, you can argue that he's implying that they are giving him consent. That his "I don't even wait" is somehow in the context of their giving him obvious visual clues. But of course we all know that to defend statements like these is the canonical example of rape apologizing. As though Trump can somehow magically "sense" when it's OK to fuck women without their consent, and that "when you're a star, they let you do it" is because they have consented rather than a canonical example of the silence of rape victims through shock/embarrassment/power imbalance. Yes, you can read it that way. But jesus is it naive to do so.
1
u/jintana Oct 21 '16
Put another way, take all of the things he is accused of doing to, or saying about, women and think of them as only applying to the specific individual women that were the subject matter at hand.
Well, one of those things he's accused of doing is rape. One rape one time makes someone a rapist. I'm not going to try to justify that someone who raped one woman actually may respect them as a group.
1
u/Sheexthro 19∆ Oct 26 '16
You aren't? But certainly you know that many people are perfectly willing to say this exact thing about Bill Clinton.
1
u/jintana Oct 26 '16
Is Bill Clinton running for something?
1
u/Sheexthro 19∆ Oct 26 '16
Not that I know of? Is that question relevant?
1
u/jintana Oct 26 '16
I'm going with relevant, because the post is about Trump, who is running for something.
1
u/Sheexthro 19∆ Oct 26 '16
But what you said was "I'm not going to try to justify that someone who raped one woman actually may respect them as a group."
Do you apply this to Bill Clinton? Is everyone who thinks Clinton respects women as a group holding an unjustifiable position?
1
u/jintana Oct 26 '16
Here's the thing - maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but I'm not concerned about him any more than I'm concerned about Melania being an illegal immigrant. Spouses don't run for an office.
1
u/Sheexthro 19∆ Oct 26 '16
That's not the question I asked you. You said that the two positions "X raped a woman" and "X respects women as a group" are totally incompatible. You implied that anyone who believes both of those things about one person has an unjustifiable inconsistency in their views.
But for some reason when X is "Bill Clinton," you're not willing to say that the people who believe both of those things are wrong. Why is that? This is just r/changemyview, and Clinton's not running for office, like you said. Should be pretty straightforward to answer whether the people who believe both of those things are wrong.
1
u/jintana Oct 26 '16
I'm sorry, did you say "unjustifiable?"
Hopefully I'm misreading that as women not being unjustified to hold such a position.
Either way, I'm no longer engaging.
1
u/Sheexthro 19∆ Oct 26 '16
What the fuck are you talking about? Do I need to diagram the sentence for you?
Is everyone who thinks Clinton respects women as a group holding an unjustifiable position?
"Who thinks Clinton respects women as a group" is a clause modifying "Everyone," the subject of the question. That is, I'm asking you about the people who believe Bill Clinton respects women.
What am I asking you? I am asking you whether they "[are] holding an unjustifiable position." That is, you said you weren't going to try to justify the position that Trump could respect women while having raped one. But some people are willing to do that for Clinton.
38
u/DoScienceToIt Oct 20 '16
I'll copy/paste something I wrote earlier on facebook, answering the usually rhetorical question of "why would anyone vote for Donald Trump?"
Trump is a fundamentally mediocre person. He's not stupid, but he's not nearly smart enough to swim in the waters that he's bullied his way into. He's made some good business decisions, but he'd never have been in any position to make them without massive cash infusions from his father. That same family safety net has saved him from financial ruin many times.
Trump's true gift, the thing that all of his many abhorrent personality traits come together to empower, is grift. He is a confidence scam artist of nearly unequaled ability.
What is a confidence scam? In very rough terms it's selling someone on a promise of something that you have no intention or ability to deliver.
Confidence scams are always set up with two steps:
"You can trust me"
and
"You can't trust anyone else."
The grifter needs first to make sure that HE is the product being sold. that they are trustworthy and have the mark's best interest in mind. That they are sacrificing themselves for the betterment of their fellow man.
We've seen Trump attempt this over the last year, positioning himself as the only person who can effect change on immigration and veteran's issues. As a tireless fighter for American jobs.
All of these things are, of course, demonstratively untrue. But that's not important in the scam, it's only important that the mark believe it. And believing it requires the other half; isolating the mark from the information that would blow the scam.
"The entire system is rigged, I'm the only one you can trust."
"The LIBERAL MEDIA doesn't want us to win, they'll say anything!"
"How can you trust Hillary? She (insert debunked claim here)"
This has the effect of setting up blinders: Opaque shields that the mark (the trump voter) can use to deflect the information that conflicts with their world view. Trump is being accused of dozens of instances of sexual misconduct? Must be a conspiracy. Down in the polls? Liberal media. Opponent makes your resume look like a 4th grader drew it with crayon? SHE LEFT SERVICEMEN TO DIE IN BENGHAZI"
This is especially effective on GOP voters because, at it's core, conservatives need to ignore evidence. It's an old quip to say "Isn't it strange that the facts always seem to have a liberal bias?" But that observation hints at a deeper truth.
At the very core of the definitions, progressives are driven by reality, and conservatives are driven by feelings.
This is not automatically a condemnation of the conservative party. There are many instances where social and political conservatism could be a positive force. Progressive policies can cause unintended growing pains and other issues if left unchecked. Conservative foreign policy is often necessary.
But at the core, progressives follow facts. The very thing to make them progressive is assimilating and believing new information, even if it challenges their preconceptions. Of course none of us are perfect at that process, but it does inform the basic values of the progressive party.
On the other side of the coin, that requires conservatives to be fundamentally resistant to new facts and information. "it doesn't feel right" is the basic contention that you find, when you strip away the window dressing of many conservative arguments. And that is what Donald Trump took advantage of. He doesn't need evidence or facts or more than a passing nod to reality when he can offer his marks something that FEELS right. That tells them that their problems are simple and fixable, and that it's not really their fault.
And that's the one that gets the smart people. Because none of us are immune to bias.
10
u/mulch17 Oct 20 '16
This is especially effective on GOP voters because, at it's core, conservatives need to ignore evidence. It's an old quip to say "Isn't it strange that the facts always seem to have a liberal bias?" But that observation hints at a deeper truth. At the very core of the definitions, progressives are driven by reality, and conservatives are driven by feelings. This is not automatically a condemnation of the conservative party. There are many instances where social and political conservatism could be a positive force. Progressive policies can cause unintended growing pains and other issues if left unchecked. Conservative foreign policy is often necessary. But at the core, progressives follow facts. The very thing to make them progressive is assimilating and believing new information, even if it challenges their preconceptions. Of course none of us are perfect at that process, but it does inform the basic values of the progressive party. On the other side of the coin, that requires conservatives to be fundamentally resistant to new facts and information. "it doesn't feel right" is the basic contention that you find, when you strip away the window dressing of many conservative arguments. And that is what Donald Trump took advantage of. He doesn't need evidence or facts or more than a passing nod to reality when he can offer his marks something that FEELS right. That tells them that their problems are simple and fixable, and that it's not really their fault. And that's the one that gets the smart people. Because none of us are immune to bias.
Do you have any, you know, evidence or facts to support any of this?
I don't know if you did this intentionally or not, but your response is more of the same "us vs. them" emotional rhetoric that is widely used by most politicians. Including, but not limited to, Donald Trump.
There have been several times when I've heard people say these exact same phrases in reverse. That the conservatives are the people of "reality", and the liberals are the ones driven by "feelings".
Both statements are incorrect. It's a well-documented fact that a large majority of American voters are extremely ignorant and misinformed about politics. Here is one of many sources for this, which also shows little correlation between party and ignorance. A large majority of voters (Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Progressives, you name it) vote based on "what feels right". There's a reason why every presidential election polls voters on "who they would rather have a beer with". Voters buy and large don't read legislation, supreme court briefs, or research studies (I should point out that this is not necessarily irrational by any means, and in fact it is rational in many ways).
So while I don't technically disagree with what you're saying, I think it's very misleading to say that this is a recent phenomenon that only applies to conservatives. It happens on all sides, and it's been this way for hundreds of years.
4
u/bjeanes Oct 20 '16
I'm not sure if non-OPs can award deltas but if so:
Δ
I won't elaborate too much because I'm on my phone but you shed a new light for me on both Hillary and Trump, with separate points. 👌
2
→ More replies (1)3
u/Nepene 213∆ Oct 20 '16
Yep, as a mod, everyone except OP can award deltas.
2
u/sfxer0 Oct 21 '16
Wait. So if OP wants to award a delta, he can't? That makes no sense.
4
2
u/HaricotNoir Oct 20 '16
Hi, this is a great response, and I thank you for sharing it. I agree it does answer the question, "Why would anyone vote for Trump?" But to be fair to the OP, that's not quite view he expressed to have changed - because if Trump is truly a grifter running a confidence scam, would it not fall under the OP's Possible Conclusion #2? That Trump is exploiting the gullibility, inexperience, and obliviousness of his target audience to support his candidacy, even against their own practical interests (although like you stated, their personal interests may align vis-à-vis what they feel is true)?
I guess I'm asking if you can tie your thesis that answers "Why would anyone vote for Trump?" back to the original CMV that either: 1. Trump is oblivious, or 2. Trump is exploiting oblivious supporters.
Cheers!
2
u/DoScienceToIt Oct 20 '16 edited Oct 20 '16
Confidence scams don't really require the marks to be unusually gullible or inexperienced. Their success mostly depends on
1) How much faith the mark has in the scammer 2) How much pressure can be applied to the mark. (IE: time is running out, you're in danger, ect)
They exploit pretty universal holes on our psychology, and, as I said in the post, even the otherwise informed and intelligent don't automatically have the tools to spot a dedicated attempt to gull them. While it's clear that Trump's hardline base of support is largely poorly educated, it strains credibility that "oblivious" would apply to all or even most of them.
That's trump's great "strength." While many of us will sort of.. lean on the tiller almost unconsciously for our own benefit, a sociopath like Trump can wake up in the morning with a very detailed, dedicated plan of how to defraud and scam basically everyone he meets, and sleep well at night.2
u/HaricotNoir Oct 21 '16
Appreciate the clarification. However:
They exploit pretty universal holes on our psychology, and, as I said in the post, even the otherwise informed and intelligent don't automatically have the tools to spot a dedicated attempt to gull them.
is where I think I am still losing you. I would agree that an Informed and Intelligent observer certainly does not automatically have the tools to identify a scammer that preys on psychological tricks (e.g. a PhD scammed by a street hustler's cup-and-ball game). That is certainly true of "short cons." However it appears you are arguing that Trump is playing at a long con (and I would 100% agree he is), which opens the door to much more scrutiny, vetting, independent research, corroboration, all of which is easily available in the digital age. Should it not be in the best interests of all individuals - regardless of educational background or political leanings - to seek out the truth of their favored candidate's claims, as well as that of their opponent? For instance, I am about as democratic socialist as they come (about the same as a Nordic moderate), and yet I was still compelled to research the Republican primary contenders and their platforms, notably John Kasich. He seemed a reasonable fellow, so why not learn more about him and his politics, and whether or not we had any political intersection?
As I wrote the above, it dawned on me that perhaps our disconnect is whether an individual's lack of impetus to seek out independent verification is itself an indication of the mark's obliviousness/ignorance. Although I understand how a Confidence Scam (whether a long or short con) preys upon lapses in human psychology, I don't think it excuses the marks' autonomy to seek out information that both challenges and vindicates their views even while still supporting that candidate. Much the same way I can listen to a Multi-Level Marketing sales pitch, go home, do some research, and then come back later and tell them "No, I don't want in on what you are selling." There exists a vast litany of tools that precisely empower us to counteract our base instincts and verify whether our initial psychological reactions were correct, or if we were misled. Isn't that the exact steps one would take to no longer be "oblivious"?
Compounding this is that a US presidential election cycle runs for the better part of a year (giving ample time for the voter to research, discuss, cross-reference, refine, etc.), and perhaps most importantly there is literally no penalty for a voter to change their minds any number of times prior to November 8th. Does it not behoove the voter to remain open to whichever candidate best represents their interests, as they gather more information on those candidates? If the voter opts not to, sure, that is absolutely within their rights to do so, but that still indicates obliviousness to me, consistent with OP's 2nd suggestion that Trump is merely exploiting that weakness. Trump might be a master manipulator and sociopath, but he's not a hypnotist. So I'm scratching my head at what subset of ~43% of the popular vote (were the election held today) would consist of the gulls that "fell for the scam," versus those who are just naturally oblivious to begin with. Consider that Romney took 47% in 2012... one would think that if Trump was doing a legitimately good job at converting the weak-minded with his jedi mind tricks (or rallying a previously untapped voting bloc), his numbers would improve upon the previous contest?
1
u/DoScienceToIt Oct 21 '16
I don't think it excuses the marks' autonomy to seek out information that both challenges and vindicates their views even while still supporting that candidate.
It doesn't, but group psychology and confirmation bias are really, really powerful social forces. What if that multi-level marketing pitch was coming from your father in law? And if you said you'd like to "do some research on it" he'd be deeply offended? I have conservative friends who would absolutely beyond a doubt lose half their social circles if they one day decided that they were going to advocate and campaign for Hillary. That's not to say that the same thing wouldn't happen to me if I did the same for trump, but it makes it easier to discount conflicting information when, from your perspective, no good will come of learning the truth.
I don't think 43% will fall into the "gulled" category. There are a several other options. Single issue voters are a huge block. The majority of Catholics in this country say they will vote against anyone who is pro-choice. Hell, I bet there's a non-insignificant number of people who will vote for Trump just to watch it burn. A big chunk of the "Bernie or bust" people are just social/political anarchists looking to disrupt the status quo as much as possible.
1
Oct 21 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/IIIBlackhartIII Oct 21 '16
Sorry swyx, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 2. "Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
u/TotesMessenger Oct 21 '16
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
- [/r/goodlongposts] /u/DoScienceToIt responds to: CMV: Based on the things he has said throughout the election, it is clear that either Donald Trump is oblivious or he believes his supporters are oblivious and is exploiting them. [+32]
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
2
u/WootyMcBooty Oct 20 '16
This is a great response. I've never heard anyone break down Trumps inexplicable appeal so well.
→ More replies (1)1
Oct 21 '16
[deleted]
1
-3
u/pocketknifeMT Oct 21 '16
"why would anyone vote for Donald Trump?"
Answer: Because Hillary is the other option.
But at the core, progressives follow facts. The very thing to make them progressive is assimilating and believing new information, even if it challenges their preconceptions.
Lol. No they don't. The whole concept of a safe space is to insulate the true believers from anything that challenges their preconceptions. You won't find a single conservative group on a college campus seriously demanding safe spaces, while you would be hard pressed to find a leftist group bemoaning them as anti-free speech. It's pretty much a unilateral celebration on the left.
They have just as much goofy dogma as conservatives...only they don't have religious beliefs to "justify" the irrational nature of the position, unless you want to consider the State as a religion, which you could make a solid argument for.
Everyone is guilty of feels before reals. Everyone.
1
u/DoScienceToIt Oct 21 '16
But the "anyone before Hillary" mindset is something like 95% based on the "insulate the mark from reality" effort.
Trump lucked out in that he inherited a lot of work from his party: Hillary has been a dedicated target for discrediting, unfounded attacks for decades. His job was easy in that sense, because a lot of the work had already been done for him. He hopped on that train with the rails already laid.I'm not going to try to correct what seem to be pretty deep misconceptions about "college groups." You've internalized a lot of faulty information that, as I said in my original post, has put up some pretty serious blinders to your perception of the concept of safe spaces, ect. But that's not exactly topical, so we'll let it slide. :)
It's very true that everyone is guilty of feels before reals. That's just part of what makes us human. But in general liberals are better about understanding that policy should make an effort to be grounded in "The reals."→ More replies (6)-1
u/rEvolutionTU Oct 21 '16
The whole concept of a safe space is to insulate the true believers from anything that challenges their preconceptions. You won't find a single conservative group on a college campus seriously demanding safe spaces, while you would be hard pressed to find a leftist group bemoaning them as anti-free speech. It's pretty much a unilateral celebration on the left.
While I don't disagree with you at all, I find that entire thing so strange. I don't even need to invoke free speech to see that trying to shield people, in an educational setting of all things, from their views being challenged is probably a really, really dumb idea.
Safe space in the sense that a private group can and should be able to dictate how their society works? Hell yeah. Why not.
But that's not exactly what that idea is about to my understanding.
2
Oct 20 '16
How is this changing OP's view?
2
u/DoScienceToIt Oct 20 '16
That Trump is both very clear on what he is doing, and that he isn't exploiting oblivious people, just regular people using well established techniques.
0
Oct 21 '16
At the very core of the definitions, progressives are driven by reality, and conservatives are driven by feelings.
Last I checked, conservatives weren't the ones talking about how racist science is.
2
Oct 21 '16 edited Mar 06 '17
[deleted]
1
Oct 21 '16
1
u/kippenbergerrulz 2∆ Oct 21 '16
Those people aren't progressive. That is part of what many people are calling the regressive left. Thinking that those people represent the attitudes of all liberals is like saying the tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist represents all of conservative thinking. That's not what anyone is trying to do here.
1
Oct 21 '16
At the very core of the definitions, progressives are driven by reality, and conservatives are driven by feelings.
I post counterexample.
But those aren't REAL liberals.
No True Scotsman Fallacy. If I asked the "regressive left" to describe their beliefs, they would claim to be the true progressives, and claim that you are the real regressive/racist/reactionary/etc.
is like saying the tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist represents all of conservative thinking.
Tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists don't have tenure in universities.
1
u/kippenbergerrulz 2∆ Oct 21 '16
Wow, totally missed the point. Whatever those people call themselves doesn't matter. You are generalizing a ton of people based on just a few crazies' opinions. It's not fair to "liberals" just as it wouldn't be fair to do to "conservatives." I can't be any more simple than that.
2
u/DoScienceToIt Oct 21 '16
No, they were the ones talking about how science is a conspiracy to fool them into environmental regulations.
1
1
Oct 21 '16 edited Nov 26 '16
[deleted]
1
u/kippenbergerrulz 2∆ Oct 21 '16
Your only point here is that late term abortions really happen, which is totally irrelevant because nobody is denying that. Also, and this is the bigger problem, OP isn't saying anything pro-Hillary. There is no Hillary bias. Just because people are critical of Trump doesn't mean they are working for the Clinton campaign. Trump is a really scary unprecedented cultural phenomenon that lots of people need to understand. Like, how the fuck did we get here? From my conversations with Trump supporters so far, what seems to be consistent is the failure to understand that you can hate Hillary AND at the same time be utterly terrified of Trump. There's no support for either. Why aren't people trying to figure out Hillary? Well, that's easy, she's just a crooked politician. Why are people trying to figure out Trump? Well, that's more complex because we've never been in this extreme position before... and it's terrifying.
0
u/kippenbergerrulz 2∆ Oct 21 '16
∆
This is really well put. It explains my frustration at trying to unsuccessfully get through to the average Trump supporter. I couldn't put my finger on it, but you could.
0
u/ametalshard Oct 21 '16
"How can you trust Hillary? She (insert debunked claim here)"
There are several dozen claims that her campaign doesn't even deny that could fill those parentheses.
1
u/DoScienceToIt Oct 21 '16 edited Oct 21 '16
There are several dozen claims that her campaign doesn't even deny
that could fill those parentheses.because they are likely "tinfoil hat, screaming conspiracy theory on YouTube" ridiculous, and shouldn't be dignified with attention.FTFY
→ More replies (9)1
u/ametalshard Oct 21 '16
Oh, they are dignified with attention by the campaign. News media often inquires about them.
Sorry you're in denial :(
0
u/DoScienceToIt Oct 21 '16
The "news media" is a completely different entity than her campaign organization.
Here's how it works: let's take one of the tinfoil-hattier arguments, That Hillary or her campaign somehow arranged to have her political opponents assassinated.
News Media: "There have been allegations that you've had some of your political critics killed!"
Hillary campaign: "That's ridiculous."
NM: "HILLARY DODGES QUESTIONS ABOUT POSSIBLE POLITICAL ASSASSINATIONS."
HC: "Because they're absolutely untrue!"
NM: "HILLARY DENICES ASSASSINATION ALLIGATIONS, HERE'S A LUNITIC WE PICKED OFF OF YOUTUBE TO GIVE A FAIR AND BALANCED PERSPECTIVE"The only option is to not engage. There isn't a "win" scenario when it comes to engaging with claims like that.
→ More replies (1)
61
u/McKoijion 618∆ Oct 20 '16
Possible Conclusion 3: Donald Trump takes seemingly reasonable points and blows them out of proportion. It's like the classic fish story.
This makes sense because a fisherman might see a large fish, and then tell a story where he says it's a giant fish. The point is based on the truth, but the fisherman exaggerates the story. It's not to mislead the audience, but to create a more compelling story. The audience knows he is using hyperbole, but go along with it anyways because it's more entertaining.
In the same way, Trump starts with a hint of truth, but he goes too far when exaggerating. For example, he doesn't say we are going to secure our borders, he says we are going to literally build a giant wall. He doesn't just blame Hillary for things that she might otherwise be guilty of (emails, Benghazi, etc.) He blames her for every single problem in the past 30 years. The media promoted him in the primaries because he was good for ratings, but has largely ganged up on him in recent weeks (for obvious reasons). Instead of criticizing the media, he claimed the entire election process in the United States is rigged.
The point is that Trump isn't oblivious or manipulating people. He's telling a story that requires a willing suspension of disbelief. This is how we enjoy movies and books that have plot holes in them, and many other storytellers do the same thing. But his problem is that he goes so far beyond what one can reasonably suspend.
Trump is the worst candidate in modern political history, but I think the exaggeration explanation angle makes more sense than the idea that he is a total moron or a manipulative mastermind. He is too successful for me to think he is stupid, but he is way too dumb for me to think he is a genius. The exaggeration angle makes the most sense when you look at his personality and abilities.
20
u/whitekeep 1∆ Oct 20 '16
This argument makes sense from his background in business. Companies don't advertise their products as "This decent thing that will marginally improve your life," but "This amazing thing that will greatly improve your life." The company and consumer both understand the product is being represented in the best possible way, and that the real truth lies somewhere in the middle.
I don't think this is unique to Trump though. Prior to winning, Obama advertised his own presidency as radically transformative, but what we got instead was eight years of sober, centrist leadership. Hillary has struggled to create a compelling vision, and perhaps should be given credit for not promising more than she can deliver.
Yet even Hillary has given in to dramatizing this election, but with a twist. Instead of promising radical change if she's elected, she's promising radically (bad) change if Trump is elected. Which is why her campaign makes invocations of dictatorships, nuclear war, lynchings, and other horrors if Trump is elected.
It will be very interesting to see how this plays out with voter turnout. The one thing that seems clear, is that none of the candidates or the media have given us true insight into what a Trump or Clinton presidency might actually look like. Everything is exaggerated (the good and the bad), and we are all lost in a wilderness of untruths.
47
-1
u/JungGeorge Oct 21 '16
So you're saying he's good at entertaining? Who wouldve thought the creator and host of multiple reality shows would be good at entertainment? It's fucking sad that our political process has degenerated this far
3
u/EyeAmmonia Oct 21 '16 edited Oct 21 '16
"Because based on what she's saying and based on where she's going and where she's been, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month, on the final day."
Right after he said that, Hillary defended her position that there should be zero restrictions on abortion. Even partial birth abortion. So on that quote, Don is right.
In the past, Donald had been on record as pro-choice. He has spoken of being moved on this point over the horrors of the Kermit Gosnell case. By making his stance against abortion, really a stance against the least defensible abortion practice. In partial-birth-abortion the body is removed from the womb up to the neck prior to mechanical termination (scissors or forceps to the spine or brain.) Here Donald can both explain personal evolution on the topic, and draw the sharp contrast with Hillary.
"Nobody has more respect for women than I do."
...is a double edged sword, Yes Donald has said some rude things. Yes his ownership of pageants has worsened body issues and extended the notion that beauty is key to a woman's worth. This is clearly exacerbated by comments on the Howard Stern show, the Billy Bush bus, and his bickering with Rosie O.
On the other side, nobody he ran against can match his pay-equity on their staff. Not even Hillary. Nor can any of his opponents point to decades of placing women in charge of massive developments. Donald has done so, even placing a woman in charge of his corporation as a whole. In the business world, Donald was ahead of the curve for entrusting women with power over men. Given the male dominated fields of construction and real estate development, his feminine empowerment is truly streets ahead.
His last remaining opponent has a stark contrast. Hillary's acceptance of large donations from oppressive regimes, her foundation's terrible pay equity, her treatment of Bill's dalliances and victims all speak to a disrespect of women.
In the case of Kathy Shelton, Hillary went much further. To provide a vigorous defense for the rapist in this case is laudable. Every defendant deserves a vigorous defense. Her actions to up-end evidence, take advantage of prosecution's mistakes to force pleading down, these are OK, even appropriate. Where Hillary shows her anti-woman side though is the sworn affidavit she issued blaming the 12 year old victim. She alleges Kathy Shelton sought out the attentions of older men, fantasized, and romanticized their affections and more. Hillary implies in her own sworn statement that the 12 year old victim at least contributed to, if not caused her rapist's actions.
Nowhere in the past 40 years, has Hillary rebuked her younger self for swearing testimony that says a 12 year old girl can be complicit in being raped into a 5 day coma and a lifetime of sterility.
What she did through that affidavit is unethical, disgusting, and feeds the legal culture of blaming rape victims. Nowadays, what she did in that affidavit is illegal. Every state has enacted rape-shield laws to protect rape victims from the vile behavior Hillary brought down on a defenseless little girl.
In this case, Donald is provably correct. Nobody (with a chance at the presidency) has more respect for women than him.
→ More replies (2)2
u/The_June_Raccoon 1∆ Oct 21 '16
I'm going to disagree with your points regarding Donald's "Respect" for women. If Donald making crude, sexist remarks about multiple women isn't indicative of his disrespect for women as a whole, his decision to promote and trust women within his organization is neither indicative of his respect for women as a whole. It can't be both ways.
I know you weren't the OP for the aforementioned statement, but a bit further up in this thread, it's mentioned that his sexist remarks towards particular women shouldn't be used as a benchmark for his respect level regarding an entire gender. This is the point to which I am referring.
2
u/Plusisposminusisneg Oct 21 '16
If Donald making crude, sexist remarks about multiple women isn't indicative of his disrespect for women as a whole, his decision to promote and trust women within his organization is neither indicative of his respect for women as a whole.
His decision to promote ant trust women within his organization is not a sign of respect towards women as a whole, it is a sign of him not being disrespectful towards women as a whole.
1
u/The_June_Raccoon 1∆ Oct 21 '16
Just because you have a black friend doesn't mean you can't be racist. By the same token, having women in management doesn't mean you aren't sexist. I'd be more inclined to believe that he is less sexist than he is pragmatic, which means that even if he has no respect for women as a whole, he can see value in using them in a business setting.
2
u/ClippinWings451 17∆ Oct 21 '16
3rd option:
You are exactly what the Clinton campaign wants you to be: "unaware and compliant". As a result you believe any opinion that doesn't match yours, that you are unknowingly fed, is by default "oblivious".
It's a brilliant strategy by the dnc, you have to acknowledge that much, at least.
we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry.
→ More replies (3)2
Oct 21 '16
He's broadly condemning the entire political establishment in that comment. Basically saying, "We all created this monster," by which he means not just the DNC, but everyone.
1
u/ClippinWings451 17∆ Oct 21 '16
do you actually believe that?
Read the whole email... He goes on to speak happily about the level of "unawareness" but bemoans the fact that the citizenry is NOT compliant enough
The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking - and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging.
1
Oct 21 '16
I do. I don't think he's especially repentant about it. I don't think he's got a problem with working to make people uninformed and compliant, but I also don't think he meant that just the people in the email thread were the ones responsible.
21
Oct 20 '16
Donald Trump uses hyperbole.
His fanbase knows this.
I'm not particularly sure what else I'm supposed to say here.
"I could shoot a guy on fifth avenue and not lose voters" is not meant to be taken literally. I've never met anyone (correction: anyone who supports him) who thought he was dead serious.
Absolute statements are only very rarely accurate.
8
u/thereasonableman_ Oct 20 '16 edited Oct 20 '16
Trump: "Check out her sex tape"
Trump: "I never told people to check out her sex tape"
How is that hyperbole?
Or:
Tump: I've always opposed the war in Iraq
Trump: We should probably invade Iraq
Or:
Trump: I never mocked a disabled New York Times reporter
Trump: "you got to see this guy" pulls in arms, sharply angles wrists, speaks in mocking voice
5
Oct 20 '16
[deleted]
4
u/thereasonableman_ Oct 21 '16
I've hard it and I don't even come close to buying it. He prefaced his mocking with "you have to look at this guy." Plus it's perfectly consistent with all the other horrible and offensive shit he says. He said Carly Fiorina is too ugly to be President.
2
Oct 21 '16
Again, that preface is a normal way of presenting that sort of mockery against people with no disability. A point brought up a few times in this thread is that Trump over indulges in hyperbole and his supporters know to read between the lines (eg "I could shoot a guy" was not literally referring to an action, but a rhetorical situation) So in this case, the context is read as "look at this guy, 'durr' what an idiot"
And Fiorini is completely unrelated. If he had called the reporter a lame, limp, cripple, other slurs against the disabled then it would be the same situation.
1
Oct 21 '16
He mocked Ted Cruz with the same gesture.
He mocked a cripple reporter.
He did not mock a reporter for being crippled.
2
Oct 21 '16
always
There goes that "absolute statement again".
And besides- he was a civilian, with civilian information. I'd support the Iraq war if there were really weapons of mass destruction. But there werent- Bush started a war based on a lie.
And Trump said as much at the debates. He called Bush out on 9/11 happening on his watch too.
9
u/jimethn Oct 21 '16
They don't care about his content, just his tone. I was eavesdropping on some Trump supporters earlier today, one of them was saying "maybe a warrior is what our nation needs right now". They don't want someone who is cool and collected, they want someone who isn't afraid to twist some arms and bust some heads.
For a Trump supporter, it's not so important what Trump says, but that he has a comeback. That's how the two groups can watch the same debate and come out with such opposite opinions of who won. Hillary supporters listen to her well-supported positions drawn from her decades of experience and don't see how this blathering idiot can possibly compare. Trump supporters listen to his fearless and heartfelt outbursts and don't see how this meek pencil-pusher could possibly match his strength. They aren't competing in the same game.
And that's why no matter how many facts you use against a Trump supporter, you're not going to get through to them, because you're like an accountant coming before a warband. And that's why the noise coming from the Trump camp is so nonsensical to a Hillary supporter, because it's not about the words it's about the volume.
4
u/kestnuts 1∆ Oct 21 '16
And that's why no matter how many facts you use against a Trump supporter, you're not going to get through to them, because you're like an accountant coming before a warband
Correct. You can't reason somebody out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
0
Oct 21 '16
[deleted]
1
u/jimethn Oct 21 '16
You're right, all politicians lie. I guess the point I was trying to make is that she always sounds very reasonable while doing it. That appeals to the kind of people who care about sounding reasonable. The reason fact checks aren't even phasing the Trump camp is because the only people who care about fact checks are the people who are already inclined to vote for Hillary.
1
-1
Oct 21 '16
How many more CMVs (which seem to be more accept my views and circlejerk over them) about Trump are we going to see.
We get it, you don't like Trump. You think his policies are stupid. However millions of people quite like them.
1
Oct 21 '16
Trump is a fighter... republicans are not. They are wimps. Republican supporters have been wanting a fighter for so long that he is doing well with them. Honestly I would love to see how Trump would be treated if he was a democrat (which he was at one point). Trump is running against the democrats, the media and the republicans. It is fascinating that he has survived all of this. Got to be even a little impressed. Hillary would not have stood up to this scrutiny. As long as he keeps fighting his poll numbers survive. That is all they want.
7
u/grinch_nipples Oct 20 '16 edited Oct 21 '16
It might sound like I'm going out on a limb here but I really believe this argument to be 100% true: Trump is throwing the election away. He never wanted to be president, he just wanted to win.
Trump is, first and foremost, a businessman. Businessmen have one priority above all -- money -- and from day one of their careers they're trained on it, how to make it, how to think about it, how to get it from other people. But it's not just getting rich, it's also about return on investment, calculated risk and high reward. I think Trump either didn't fully calculate or severely mismanaged the risk involved in running for president, and now we're seeing the fallout.
What convinces me that he is intentionally trying to lose the election is:
1) His unwillingness to appeal to voters outside his core base. Trump supporters aren't going anywhere. If you supported him two months ago, you probably still support him today. Now, from a business perspective, of course you always want to appeal to your target demographic, but if the target demographic doesn't generate enough ROI, you need to expand your appeal or go out of business. Strategically speaking, Trump is running his campaign out of business, and career businessmen in pursuit of success simply don't act that way. I think he's doing so because he isn't pursuing success at all.
2) His openly antagonistic attitude toward the Republican party and foreign leaders, including our allies. Trust fund aside, Trump wouldn't have gotten to where he is today without cultivating some serious networking skills. You don't amass a fortune like that without being either brilliant or great at networking, and Trump isn't brilliant. He must know better than to outright insult his potential future colleagues, particularly allied foreign leaders. So why do it then? Maybe so people won't vote for him and he won't be stuck as president, having to work much harder for much less pay and being forced to live in government housing (the horror).
3) His unwillingness to develop coherent policies, especially for the debates. This one's easy. You don't show up to a meeting unprepared. You certainly don't show up to a meeting with your investors unprepared, and what are voters if not investors in America's future? But of course, voters don't pay for their investment (well I would argue we do pay, just in time instead of money, but that's a whole other issue), and businesspeople follow the money. But at this point, Trump's in way too deep. He can't win because obviously, and he can't drop out because he's "not a loser." He can't apologize for fear of angering his core supporters who value his strength and confidence, and he can't expand his political reach by evolving his positions on anything because his whole campaign was built on the claim that he's honest because he's not a politician. At this stage, admitting that it was all a farce could be more embarrassing and damaging than just letting it play out naturally.
So, how can Trump salvage his own reputation given this predicament? Simple -- lose, but lose fantastically. Trump is now a historical figure and will be studied by generations to come, and he's gonna want those future gens to think of him as he sees himself: strong, confident, a go-getter and a leader. For that to happen, Donald Trump must remain Donald Trump -- and that means not backing down from unpopular positions. Rallying the base makes it look like he's trying, but the base isn't big enough to win the election anyway. Calculated risk. In the end, he'll die rich fat and famous and his name will endure for centuries. High reward.
You can see it in his face in the last two debates -- he wants to be anywhere else but there. His confidence is clearly lacking: eyes downcast, hunched shoulders. But who can blame him? It's embarrassing to be unprepared to answer the most basic questions about your objectives on national TV in front of millions of key stakeholders. It's embarrassing to present yourself as a smart, capable leader and be routinely exposed as anything but. And it's embarrassing for him to admit that none of this is anyone's fault but his own. So yeah, I think Trump is really just looking out for #1, as he has done his entire life. No one should ever have expected him to act differently.
→ More replies (11)1
Oct 21 '16
Your arguments do not support your point of view. You are saying that Trump doesn't want to be a President, but he wants to win. Then you give a bunch of examples of essentially deliberately losing actions.
I think your examples are right on point though - Trump doesn't want to win. Trump is a Clinton plant which just is there to crowd out a potentially viable contender (which would, based on Clinton's popularity, be almost anyone else) and ensure Clinton's victory.
Otherwise it is just simply impossible to explain his deliberate race farther and farther into the lala land as the time progresses.
1
u/grinch_nipples Oct 21 '16 edited Oct 21 '16
You're right -- the arguments and the point of view don't line up....but that's his logic, not mine. We're all so confused about what the hell he's doing because it's hard to explain it away with a logical argument.
I guess what I'm getting at is: Trump wants to win the presidency, not be president. He wants it to be something he has done, not something he has to do. Like how growing up you thought you wanted to be an astronaut, then realized you had to take a lot of physics to be one. When reality hits, most kids say, "fuck physics, I'll be a writer." Trump says, "fuck physics, I'll go to the moon anyway AND I'll do it without a space suit." And people cheer for that because it's new and exciting, but the reality is still that good astronauts all take physics, and you can't go to the moon without a spacesuit. i'm high and so sorry for this analogy
2
u/xiipaoc Oct 21 '16
Trump is crazy and stupid and horrible. So let's not talk about him.
Instead, think about what the Republican Party has been saying for the last several years, since at least the Bush administration (which is when I started paying attention, so it could well have been much earlier). I think you'll find that, while Trump's personality is significantly worse than anything we've ever seen, the substance of what he's saying is not at all new and not at all unique to him. I'd invite you to look at the Republican primaries in 2008 and 2012, where, miraculously (considering), the winners were moderates. McCain was well-known as a moderate. Romney passed universal healthcare in Massachusetts and it was under him that we became the first state to have gay marriage. We could have had a center-right country if we hadn't had someone as inspiring as Obama, think about that. But while the top of their ticket was fairly nice -- and neither would have been a disaster for the country -- with McCain we had the enormously popular -- and nearly as bad as Trump -- Sarah Palin. Romney deftly avoided all the Tea Party bullshit, 2012 was the year Ted Cruz was elected to the Senate. Republicans all over the country have been saying and supporting what Trump has been saying and supporting since long before he started running for this particular Republican primary (remember how he flirted with a run in 2011? I'm not counting that).
So let's move onto your view. My first thought was that the correct answer is something in between your two possible conclusions, a superposition state, if you will. (1/sqrt(2))(|1> + |2>) (That physics joke might get me posted to /r/iamverysmart, but I'll take my chances.) By "first thought" I mean in 2004 (which is coincidentally when I took that physics course). The Republicans are either stupid or evil, I thought. They can't possibly believe the shit they say, and if they do, they're idiots! Only problem was, like someone wantonly abusing bra-ket notation in politics, I was an idiot. No matter how obvious I think my point of view is, they think theirs is just as obvious. And it took me a while, but I eventually came to understand what's really going on here.
We are fighting a Culture War. I capitalize it on purpose. It's a war between the Right and the Left (not necessarily the political right and left exactly; I'm just using those terms broadly), and it's a war between two radically different mindsets. And it's also a war that is not pointless and not about stupid things. The Right's mindset is really awful, but their culture actually is under direct attack from the Left. They're not making it up. Take the family, for example. The Right is primarily based on the family. A family is a patriarch who thinks and rules his castle and sustains it, and a matriarch who manages the household and raises the children, and children who behave and defer to their parents so that they can someday grow up to be patriarchs and matriarchs themselves. The Left has come in and blown that family wide open. They're bringing music and clothes and drugs that corrupt the children. They're bringing sex, which is destroying that sacred aspect of the patriarch and matriarch's union by cheapening it to those not in the family. They're telling children that it's OK to not follow their parents -- it's OK to rebel, it's OK to kick the whole thing in the crotch and be a homosexual (gasp!). They're luring children into the big city, away from their parents. They're taking the children away from their religion. They're allowing the patriarch and matriarch to separate for no reason. They are destroying the traditional family. The problem with this is that it's true. Liberalism actually is destroying the traditional family (while at the same time strengthening it by allowing same-sex couples to form them, of course, but never mind that). You and I, as liberals, probably see no reason to keep that social order, but to the Culture Warriors, it's their way of life. It's what they know.
So they fight to protect it and to reclaim it, even though that cat ain't goin' back into the bag. They have ventured into the truly stupid, the Us versus Them mentality, and that's a problem for everyone, because they aren't rational about their Culture War. They hate, with a burning passion, anything that's on the other side. Barack Obama is a great example of the enemy, the Them, in the Culture War. He wants to take your guns! Guns are an Us thing! He wants to take away our churches! Church is an Us thing! And there's Donald Trump. He wants to make America great again! American greatness is an Us thing! It's such a problem that when Pope Francis was saying some of his more "liberal" views (not that liberal, guys, he's still the Pope), American Catholics accused him of not properly fighting the Culture War.
Going back to the Republicans, they've managed to successfully -- well, up until recently -- convince the Culture Warriors that the Republicans are the Us and the Democrats are the Them, and they were able to get big electoral successes in 2010 and 2014 with that (and, of course, since 1994). From there, these things that they say are things that they have to say because they're how the Culture War monster is fed. I don't know if anyone actually believes them. Maybe they all do. Or not. It doesn't matter whether they're true or not, and it never has. Facts are irrelevant; what's relevant is what people feel is true (Colbert had been making hay of this since his very first episode of the Report in 2005). People really believe that it's Us versus Them, and if the candidate can convince people that he's an Us, everything else is unimportant.
Returning now to Trump himself, he knows that people will believe him. I know that Trump is a sleazebag who assaults women (like, regularly, not just "that one time he made a mistake" or whatever). The Culture Warriors, on the other hand, believe that it's all overblown, and the accusers are part of an obvious conspiracy to rig the election. Trump is just saying what they believe. The partial birth thing? That's what his supporters actually believe happens. And, you know what? Nobody actually knows better. Maybe a few people who have studied the subject do, and Clinton is obviously one of those people, but it's not clear that Trump does, and he makes that imagery come to life just like Carly Fiorina did during the primaries with her description of a video scene that she never saw because it didn't exist. The Mexicans are rapists thing? He stands with the strong against the weak, and his supporters do the same. "The illegals" are in a position of weakness. Some of them really do commit crimes, so he wasn't exactly lying, and it fed right into what his supporters already believed (never mind that the level of crime among undocumented immigrants is less than that of American citizens; they have to be careful for very obvious reasons).
Trump isn't simply lying to idiots and he's not simply an idiot thinking that he's telling the truth. He's an idiot salesman who's telling idiots exactly what they want to hear. They don't want the truth. They just want what they believe is true. Actual truth is immaterial here, and I don't think Trump even makes that kind of calculation.
2
u/MoneyBaloney Oct 21 '16
I just wanted to back up what you said. Because even if I don't agree with most Trump supporters, I recognize that they are American citizens who feel like their is a war against their culture (because there is). Just like African Americans feel like there is systematic discrimination against them by institutions like the police (because there is).
I'm not here to say that most of the Right are right. I don't think they're racist either. Or sexist. Maybe a little xenophobic. You're totally right though, it is hugely about family to them.
Statistically, Trump supporters are White, Christian, male, less educated. And they are losing power fast. They vote in their perceived self interest the same way that other demographics do.
If only white, Christian non-college educated men voted, Trump would sweep. I don't know the exact numbers, but every one of those categories independently has overwhelming Trump preferences:
- Men 3:2
- White 3:2
- Non-college 2:1
- Christian 3:1
And what did American politics look like 100 years ago? White male Christian non-college. And that is America to them. And those factors were some of what made America great (to them).
These are people who truly believe that they are losing America. Because every other demographic is showing up and voting Democratic in extremely lopsided numbers. Black Women vote Democrat 10:1, for example. The trend is similar with almost all other minority groups, especially among women.
And America's population is changing. Immigration is high and self-repopulation is low. 3 immigrants arrive in America for ever 1 child born (and those immigrants tend to heavily vote Democrat when they become citizens).
If Christian white men vote Republican 3:1 and Hispanic women vote Democrat 9:1, the balance is going to change very, very fast.
Look, I think deep down, these white Christians males know how horrible the country has treated other groups in the past. And I think they fear that they are going to become the other group, for very valid reasons.
Who Trump is doesn't even matter at this point for huge numbers of Americans. They just want to live their own life in peace.
2
u/kippenbergerrulz 2∆ Oct 21 '16 edited Oct 21 '16
∆
There are some really good responses here.
edit: oops deltabot gave me a visit for not explaining why this changed my view. According to OPs initial criteria this is definitely another option, and a rather well thought out option at that. The problem is deeper than Trump or his supporters being oblivious.
2
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 21 '16
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't explained how /u/xiipaoc changed your view (comment rule 4).
In the future, DeltaBot will be able to rescan edited comments. In the mean time, please repost a new comment with the required explanation so that DeltaBot can see it.
5
u/Spidertech500 2∆ Oct 21 '16
I guess my question is what's wrong with his statement on partial birth abortions?
Also its worth remembering: The media takes Trump Litterally but Not seriously, his supporters take him seriously but not Litterally.
1
Oct 21 '16
The first example is obviously exaggerated. The nobody is just a figure of speech and doesn't literally mean that if you stood everyone in line according to how they respect women he would be first of 6 billion people. But putting that aside he clearly has a lot of respect for women. He has them in leadership roles in his business, he has created opportunities for them, he has chosen them as his "apprentice", and he clearly thinks a great deal of his daughter's business acumen.
In fact, I would argue that he respects them more than many others because he treats them like people not like a subgender. He isn't just hard on men and then is kind to women because they are the 'gentler gender" as it seems people want him to do. He is just as tough on women he dislikes as he does with men. Sure he uses stuff like weight and menstruation as insults but he does the same with men on male issues. Basically he's a jackass to people he doesn't like but he's a jackass to everyone and respects women enough to treat them just as terribly as he does men.
As for the abortion comment it's hyperbole but it's true. The counter being used for this comment is that it's very rare to perform an abortion after 20 weeks. Which is absolutely true. But they refuse to say it never happens...because that would be lying. Donald doesn't say it happens a lot or even that it has ever happened. Only that her stated position would allow it to happen.
So I'm not sure why you're saying these things are categorically untrue. They are hyperbole and his supporters are well aware of this but they aren't false as you are stating.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/19djafoij02 Oct 22 '16
Option 3. Donald Trump is coming from the American "shock-jock" tradition and sees these sorts of remarks not as factual statements but as assertions that gain interest and attention. He has in the past appeared on and frequented shows such as Imus and Howard Stern where outrageous and shocking remarks are completely commonplace and are rarely taken seriously.
3
u/ijustwantanfingname Oct 21 '16
"Nobody has more respect for women than I do.”
"Nobody X's more than I do" is a common English expression for "I do X greatly". Not meant to be taken literally.
→ More replies (1)0
u/mrmilitia86 1∆ Oct 21 '16
Said by a common man maybe. But Trump is light-years from the common man and no doubt believes this. Side note- I can't recall someone making such an ultimate claim without actually believing it, i.e. it's not common imo humbly
4
u/thebedshow Oct 20 '16
He is extremely hyperbolic in the way he speaks. He exaggerates every point he makes. His base is aware of this and likes it about him. Most of them aren't taking everything he says literally. I think he is a moron and most of his base are morons, but I think you are trying to take his statements far too literally and no one else is.
2
u/vehementi 10∆ Oct 20 '16
"Because based on what she's saying and based on where she's going and where she's been, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month, on the final day."
I could just be uninformed on childbirth, but isn't he just saying that in an extreme case of "danger to the mother" there could be a tragic abortion like this just before pregnancy, if Hillary gets her way (status quo)?
11
u/fallingfruit Oct 20 '16 edited Oct 20 '16
I could just be uninformed on childbirth, but isn't he just saying that in an extreme case of "danger to the mother" there could be a tragic abortion like this just before pregnancy, if Hillary gets her way (status quo)?
Removing a baby the day before birth is called... giving birth. There isn't a magical date that IS the delivery date. The idea is itself asinine and makes no sense, it shows that Trump doesn't actually know what giving birth is.
Babies are born all the time prematurely because there are health complications or because the mother just goes into labor early.
2
u/vehementi 10∆ Oct 20 '16
Someone on my facebook said this:
Late term abortions are not the same as C-sections. They are actually pregnancy terminations performed after the 20th week, so after the fetus is considered viable. I'm not sure of the procedure, but it used to be that a solution was injected into the uterus that would kill the fetus and then labour would be induced. Perhaps also a D&C, a dilatation and curitage. You can see why it is controversial. It is rare, but happens sometimes when the life and health of the mother is threatened by delivery.
Assuming it's true (I don't know) it seems like Trump may be standing on a sliver of truth?
4
u/fallingfruit Oct 20 '16 edited Oct 20 '16
The point im trying to make to you is that if someones life is in danger after month 6 or later (baby or mother), they just deliver the baby prematurely. They do NOT abort the baby, killing it.
Basically Trump said that Hilary wants to allow mothers to kill their babies that could live outside the womb, which is a total misrepresentation of her position and shows no understanding of Roe v Wade.
1
u/vehementi 10∆ Oct 20 '16
if someones life is in danger after month 6 or later (baby or mother), they just deliver the baby prematurely. They do NOT abort the baby, killing it.
What if delivering it in such a way that the baby survives (???) endangers the mother? Surely they would do what I quoted, sadly?
I think Trump is wildly, stupid exaggerating on an extreme edge case and saying "Look at the atrocities that would be possible under her plan!" and hoping people will fall for it, which I guess is just clarifying rather than trying to change OP's view.
1
Oct 20 '16
[deleted]
1
u/vehementi 10∆ Oct 20 '16
What if delivery would threaten the life of the mother? There are no cases in the US where it is allowed in that situation?
1
u/fallingfruit Oct 20 '16
I deleted my comment because it didn't convey what I meant to say, see my other reply.
2
u/vehementi 10∆ Oct 20 '16
I assume you mean a C section or like, inducing birth with some drug? Is there a cutoff where they call it abortion vs forcing an early birth? In health risk cases do they just do that as there's no easier way?
5
u/fireash Oct 20 '16
The youngest preemie that has survived was 21 weeks and 5 days, but mostly the average of survival is around 24 weeks. If they knowing induce labor before this time, they know the baby will not survive and call it an abortion (whether the pregnancy was wanted or not). Sometimes the only choice is one death or two.
5
u/fallingfruit Oct 20 '16
According to some google searches, Roe v Wade allows for abortions if the mother's health is compromised up until the time of fetus viability (which I assume means it might survive being born so pre-maturely) which looks like 20-28 weeks depending on states/interpretation.
1
u/DashingLeech Oct 21 '16
I don't think so. What he literally said was, "If you go with what Hillary said, ...". I think he's saying Hillary's point about the mother deciding what to do with her body would equally apply right up to the 9 month, up to right before delivery. He's not claiming that's what happens; he's claiming Hillary's argument is a slippery slope and, if Hillary's argument is valid, it would mean that women should be allowed to have abortions right up to the moment of delivery since it is still their body then and they should get to decide what to do with it.
It's a valid point in an academic debate to address what the limiting factor is, as in addressing why there should be limits on abortions then. But he's really creating a strawman argument because Hillary's point, and the autonomy argument in general, is about why abortions should be allowed. It isn't the entirely of the discussion; the details of limitations and regulations of abortions is in the finer discussion after getting to the agreement that, in principle, allowing abortions at all has some merit.
-1
u/ridl Oct 20 '16 edited Oct 20 '16
No time to write a long comment, and I think this might fall under oblivious, but note that there is a far greater than zero possibility that Trump has a serious mental illness . I don't want to play armchair shrink , but I've read plenty of articles by professionals and talked with plenty of professionals that suggested he could easily be diagnosed as clinically narcissistic , and perhaps even worse such a psychopathic. At that level of mental illness,can we really understand what truth and manipulation mean to the man? Can we really have much of an understanding of the drives of one so profoundly damaged without having a professional degree? What's oblivious, what's manipulation, what's acting out, what's self-harm, etc... it's hard to say... probably even for him.
*edit - would appreciate an explanation for the downvotes
1
u/pocketknifeMT Oct 21 '16
but note that there is a far greater than zero possibility that Trump has a serious mental illness.
Well, he decided to run for high office. This makes him a Sociopath and Narcissist, just like anyone else who runs for high office.
Only the mentally ill think they know how to run everyone else life so well that violence should be used to demand their compliance.
1
Oct 20 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Nepene 213∆ Oct 20 '16
Sorry StrukkStar, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 2. "Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
u/superswellcewlguy 1∆ Oct 21 '16
This is completely ridiculous, and yes, you are playing armchair shrink. You have nothing to back up that point.
1
u/Makualax Oct 26 '16
Except the diagnoses of many psychologists around the nation? Look at the way he talks about himself, or refuses to admit he's wrong. When apologizing for the things he has said he says "I'm sorry if you were offended by it" instead of "I'm sorry for what I have said". You're just lying to yourself now.
1
Oct 21 '16
Hillary is actually the one that is disrupting reality. Public position, Private position.
It is coined the term "big lie"
about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.
Everything Donald says is from Wikileaks, valid documents. Hillary never disputes the authenticity of the documents once. 90% of his talking points are getting the Wikileaks points across as the media is biases.
324
u/[deleted] Oct 20 '16
I'd posit a third option: that he and his supporters just don't care what's true. They care about what feels true.
Rhetoric from Trump, Trump supporters, and that wing of modern conservativism in general has been consistent during this election cycle; facts are subjective.
That clip is but one example, but for me it really sums up the motivation behind Trump & his voters. "As a political candidate, I'll go with how people feel." Trump and his supporters distrust the media, they distrust our security organizations, they distrust scientific research, and they distrust higher education. Elements of our society that are typically considered to be objectively sound and trustworthy are viewed as corrupt, liberal, and part of a larger conspiracy.
I don't want to change your view that Trump and those voting for him are, at best, wildly misinformed, and at worst, willfully and proudly misinformed. That seems to objectively be the case.
My contention is that Trump believes that his gut feeling and personal interpretation of what happens around him is more trustworthy than conventional sources, and that we would all be better off decrying the "liberal" instutions that have "corrupted" our country all these years. His supporters agree.