• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Retromelon

Member
A tweet read on fox news a few minutes ago: "California and New York do not run this country. The founders' brilliance saves us again."

I swear I can hear your collective screams
 
P

pigeon

Banned
BreezyLimbo said:
Moral responsibility isnt a monolith. What is morally right for one person, is not for another.
Click to expand...

No. This just isn't true. There are moral principles. You can live up to them or not.

BreezyLimbo said:
If moral responsibilty was the law of the land, the world would be a utopia. But it isnt. There are wars. Violence is prevalent. Saying "moral responsibility" is ignoring the fact that the world is and will continue to be a tumultuous place.(and telling people its their moral responsibilty to vote one way is a quick way for them to stop listening to you)
Click to expand...

Hence the embarrassing failure of such moralizers as Martin Luther King Jr. or Mahatma Gandhi.

I'll say it again: progressivism has only EVER succeeded in America when it was driven by a clear moral imperative.
 
B

BreezyLimbo

Banned
pigeon said:
No. This just isn't true. There are moral principles. You can live up to them or not.



Hence the embarrassing failure of such moralizers as Martin Luther King Jr. or Mahatma Gandhi.

I'll say it again: progressivism has only EVER succeeded in America when it was driven by a clear moral imperative.
Click to expand...

Moral principles set by who, though? The victors in a war? Moral principles set by religion? By the majority? By the minority?

What moral imperative caused America to be successful? Wanting to be free from Britains rule? Wanting to keep the union together? Wanting to fight back against the Axis?

There is no clear, set in stone, moral imperative that has commanded progress by itself. There is no moral imperative that hasn't changed to suit the times. And there is no moral imperative that everyone will follow equally.
 
C

Crocodile

Member
BreezyLimbo said:
The human race is a failure though, because the whole world doesnt follow your line of morality? Even when we criticize places that lack basic human rights, that doesnt right the immorality happening and make the human race not into a failure?

What is a successful human race? If we're going to be absolutist with proclaiming that the human race is a failure for not always criticizing what we deem wrong, then show me the human race that is a success.

At the end of this, the reality is that humanity will always be flawed. It always will be. If you think the human race is a failure because of that, then you will never think otherwise.

Im not saying we shouldnt be against the isms. Im saying that not everyone has the same values, nor should they because thats an unrealistic expectation of humans. And because of that fact, the messaging in a campaign should be more inclusive of those you deem to be the failures of humanity. Like it is said, actions speak louder than words, so having the words be misleading is ok if it means that you can get your actions can come to pass.

If Hillary told the rust belt she would whisk away all their problems and focused on them, that would be fine because shes not betraying minorities by doing so. And it wouldve gotten her in the white house.

Instead we have trump who DID lie about being allies of hispanics and black people and whoever, and look where he is now.

The point is, arguing for moral responsibilty and telling people its morally right to vote for X is a quick way to shut down dialogue because not everyone has the same morals.
Click to expand...

Me: "Voting for ____ism is morally wrong"
You: "Hey man, it's all relative"

Am I understanding you correctly? I don't want to put words in your mouth if I'm off base. Like there has to be a baseline of things we can consider as a culture/nation/species to be morally wrong. If its "your morals" vs. "my morals" then there are no such things as actual morals. I don't disagree that the general acceptance of where this baseline is moves with time but you seem to refuse to say those who voted for Trump made a morally reprehensible choice. Why? They did. That doesn't mean they are irredeemable or don't have real concerns worth addressing but they still fucked up.

Again, nothing about Clinton's campaign was exclusive to white people. If they felt that way that's not on her. Again this isn't to absolve her from the real errors she made but at no point did she throw white people under a bus. It's just her opponent offered up "non-white people are trash and took your jobs".

Retromelon said:
A tweet read on fox news a few minutes ago: "California and New York do not run this country. The founders' brilliance saves us again."

I swear I can hear your collective screams
Click to expand...

Funny, I thought the people were the most important part of a country, not its land mass :p

BreezyLimbo said:
Moral principles set by who, though? The victors in a war? Moral principles set by religion? By the majority? By the minority?

What moral imperative caused America to be successful? Wanting to be free from Britains rule? Wanting to keep the union together? Wanting to fight back against the Axis?

There is no clear, set in stone, moral imperative that has commanded progress by itself. There is no moral imperative that hasn't changed to suit the times. And there is no moral imperative that everyone will follow equally.
Click to expand...

Slavery ended when enough people figured out it was morally repugnant
Child Labor ended when enough people figured out it was morally repugnant
Segregation ended when enough people figured out it was morally repugnant

etc, etc.

Now in each case large groups of the population had to be dragged along kicking and screaming, the transitions weren't smooth or quick or straight-forward, some of these became less explicit and more implicit rather end entirely, etc. In all cases however, a big driving force for change in all these respects was the realization by enough people that "hey X is kind of fucked up!"
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
B-Dubs said:
Well if the GOP wants an excuse to impeach him this would be a pretty easy road to take.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think he would have to receive some sort of stipend for the episodes produced regardless since Trump Productions is a producer on the show.

Literally I think NBC would have to cancel it for Trump not to make money on the show.
 
B

BreezyLimbo

Banned
Crocodile said:
Me: "Voting for ____ism is morally wrong"
You: "Hey man, it's all relative"

Am I understanding you correctly? I don't want to put words in your mouth if I'm off base. Like there has to be a baseline of things we can consider as a culture/nation/species to be morally wrong. If its "your morals" vs. "my morals" then there are no such things as actual morals. I don't disagree that the general acceptance of where this baseline is moves with time but you seem to refuse to say those who voted for Trump made a morally reprehensible choice. Why? They did. That doesn't mean they are irredeemable or don't have real concerns worth addressing but they still fucked up.

Again, nothing about Clinton's campaign was exclusive to white people. If they felt that way that's not on her. Again this isn't to absolve her from the real errors she made but at no point did she throw white people under a bus. It's just her opponent offered up "non-white people are trash and took your jobs".
Click to expand...

"Everyone who voted for Trump voted for Racism, Xenophobia, Sexism, etc."

Is that a statement you stand behind? Trust me I was like you. I'm ready to throw tens of millions of people under the bus. Unfortunately those tens of millions of people also decided they wanted a Republican President. And a Republican Congress. And a Republican Supreme Court. So it's not as easy as telling those people that they're wrong. You really can't say 'How can you be a racist by supporting a person who said racist things?'. You can't write off these people that won the country for Trump. You really, really can't.

So I'm not saying that you should support their racism. I'm not saying you should support their Xenophobia or sexism. I'm saying you should tailor your message to them, even if you'll take different actions. 'But that's immoral to lie to them', 'but it's not morally right to appeal to these racists whilst trying to appeal to minorities'. Morality comes and goes. Taking the moral road and writing off and ignoring those people you both assumed would automatically vote for the 'right' choice and would care about minorities caused the government to be lost.

Saying they made a 'morally reprehensible choice' and that they 'fucked up' isn't going to win any of those people to your side. Yes, we can absolutely say they fucked up because we are looking at the broader game here. To the people trying to live day by day? Like I mentioned before, empathy is a two way street. The poor white family in Wisconsin who had to listen to Clinton talk mainly about minorities and never visit their state decided to vote for the person who did talk about their economic anxiety and visited their state.

That's not an excuse for them. That's a reality of what happened. Republicans won by the skin of their teeth. Because Clintons messaging was fucked up. Because these moral purity tests, are so damn short sighted. 'If democrats appeal to white people, then they're the enemy!'. I've seen that sentiment come from some people. That is where you lose me in this moral purity because there is a tonedeaf belief that being morally right should stump any other type of sentiment.

And when there are posters who say that the only way to Progress in America is through a clear Moral Imperative, then I see the democrats losing and losing if they keep that train of thought.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
whyamihere said:
Yeah, I think he would have to receive some sort of stipend for the episodes produced regardless since Trump Productions is a producer on the show.

Literally I think NBC would have to cancel it for Trump not to make money on the show.
Click to expand...

Well, if we ever take the House and Senate back at least we'll have clear impeachment grounds.
 
F

faisal233

Member
CzMiXaJVQAAtRUy.jpg
 
N

NobleXenon

Member
Odrion said:
also i keep getting confused at people treating social justice and economic justice as two individual and clashing concepts that you must leave one for the other

you can do both. in fact, i'd say they're quite connected

edit: and again another reminder that what really went wrong is that hillary's campaign was mismanaged and we all bought into what turned out to be inaccurate polling. if hillary tried to secure the rust belt over trying to win over red states we'd be saying that her campaign that was based in social justice was a good one, great even. but instead hillary tried to play a game of chicken in michigan and red states are fucking stupid, so now people want to shit on minorities to suck up to white folks. ugh.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it wasn't until a couple years ago that I learned about economic issues are social issues.



I have really low expectations for rural america, but I at least offered my family that they are welcomed to stay here in Nevada to escape the shit hole they're in (Wisconsin).
 
C

Crocodile

Member
BreezyLimbo said:
"Everyone who voted for Trump voted for Racism, Xenophobia, Sexism, etc."

Is that a statement you stand behind? Trust me I was like you. I'm ready to throw tens of millions of people under the bus. Unfortunately those tens of millions of people also decided they wanted a Republican President. And a Republican Congress. And a Republican Supreme Court. So it's not as easy as telling those people that they're wrong. You really can't say 'How can you be a racist by supporting a person who said racist things?'. You can't write off these people that won the country for Trump. You really, really can't.

So I'm not saying that you should support their racism. I'm not saying you should support their Xenophobia or sexism. I'm saying you should tailor your message to them, even if you'll take different actions. 'But that's immoral to lie to them', 'but it's not morally right to appeal to these racists whilst trying to appeal to minorities'. Morality comes and goes. Taking the moral road and writing off and ignoring those people you both assumed would automatically vote for the 'right' choice and would care about minorities caused the government to be lost.

Saying they made a 'morally reprehensible choice' and that they 'fucked up' isn't going to win any of those people to your side. Yes, we can absolutely say they fucked up because we are looking at the broader game here. To the people trying to live day by day? Like I mentioned before, empathy is a two way street. The poor white family in Wisconsin who had to listen to Clinton talk mainly about minorities and never visit their state decided to vote for the person who did talk about their economic anxiety and visited their state.

That's not an excuse for them. That's a reality of what happened. Republicans won by the skin of their teeth. Because Clintons messaging was fucked up. Because these moral purity tests, are so damn short sighted. 'If democrats appeal to white people, then they're the enemy!'. I've seen that sentiment come from some people. That is where you lose me in this moral purity because there is a tonedeaf belief that being morally right should stump any other type of sentiment.

And when there are posters who say that the only way to Progress in America is through a clear Moral Imperative, then I see the democrats losing and losing if they keep that train of thought.
Click to expand...

Are you arguing a strawman here? This isn't some mutually exclusive deal where you can only say or at least recognize that "those voters made a poor moral choice" and try to earn their votes by speaking to their real concerns. Them voting for someone unqualified in every way for the job and Clinton not spending enough time in the Rust Belt (thx polling?) are two separate issues. A candidate who avoids the later mistake probably wins the presidency. Like all I can take away from what you are advocating is "don't criticize Trump voters"? As if to absolve them of the choice they made. No, I think I will continue to do that WHILST also advocate for progressive policies or positions that are likely to help their concerns (though there probably should be more debate as to how much those concerns are actually economics vs. "Clinton is the devil" or "immigrants are taking my jobs" vs. whatever.). Again, obviously, we should spend more time talking to Rust Belt voters and listening to what they have to say and better serve their needs. Those who voted for Trump still fucked up though.

As an addition, I'd also note that none of us here are politicians trying to win their votes - we can say what we want :p
 
B

BreezyLimbo

Banned
Crocodile said:
Are you arguing a strawman here? This isn't some mutually exclusive deal where you can only say or at least recognize that "those voters made a poor moral choice" and try to earn their votes by speaking to their real concerns. Them voting for someone unqualified in every way for the job and Clinton not spending enough time in the Rust Belt (thx polling?) are two separate issues. A candidate who avoids the later mistake probably wins the presidency. Like all I can take away from what you are advocating is "don't criticize Trump voters"? As if to absolve them of the choice they made. No, I think I will continue to do that WHILST also advocate for progressive policies or positions that are likely to help their concerns (though there probably should be more debate as to how much those concerns are actually economics vs. "Clinton is the devil" or "immigrants are taking my jobs" vs. whatever.). Again, obviously, we should spend more time talking to Rust Belt voters and listening to what they have to say and better serve their needs. Those who voted for Trump still fucked up though.

As an addition, I'd also note that none of us here are politicians trying to win their votes - we can say what we want :p
Click to expand...

I was arguing morality and what is morally right or if morally rightness is a thing. It's a tangent upon tangents that has been discussed today, so looping back around to include tangents within tangents is quite the herculean task.

so that's why i'm veering about 'moral imperatives' and 'messaging' and 'rust belt'
 
TheLaughingStock

TheLaughingStock

Member
BreezyLimbo said:
That's not an excuse for them. That's a reality of what happened. Republicans won by the skin of their teeth. Because Clintons messaging was fucked up.
Click to expand...

Her messaging wasn't fucked up. 62 million folks in the right place at the right time fundamentally disagree with her ideology and what establishment Democrats stand for. 65 million on her side wasn't enough to overcome that.
 
A

AntraxSuicide

Banned
NobleXenon said:
Yeah. There's some weird dissonance in rural America between the welfare of minorities that also helps whites, and then thinking whites need to be the only one's coddled to feel represented. I know the default response is, "Well they vote against their interests," but what happens when cities realize that voting for themselves makes the people in the cities much better off than constantly subsidizing rural life through social security, farm payments, and other tax redistribution projects?

If Trump and the Republican's cut federal taxes for the wealthy while simultaneously cut government spending, then cities will raise their taxes and get more for themselves.

I've been noticing this here in Nevada. We don't get much federal money compared to most states, and we have no state income tax aside from consumption. Reno in Washoe County and Las Vegas in Clark County will only spend what tax is collected for themselves and nothing will go to rural areas because that is where most of the money is made and where most of the tax is collected.

I really have no idea how to communicate this to rural America.
Click to expand...

There's no other way but to withhold. You can just either force the state to implement real taxes by withholding yours, or the state can go bankrupt while you rub it in their faces. The main reason the failures of KS and LA aren't hitting most people is that those failures are too far and therefore abstract.

These people need to be forced to confront reality; life under Democrats leads to better working conditions and actual quality of life improvements. Life under rural Republicans is directly ruining your life.
 
B

BreezyLimbo

Banned
TheLaughingStock said:
Her messaging wasn't fucked up. 62 million folks in the right place at the right time fundamentally disagree with her ideology and what establishment Democrats stand for. 65 million on her side wasn't enough to overcome that.
Click to expand...

Yeah. She won the popular vote. She still lost. The electoral college is a blight.
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
BreezyLimbo said:
I was arguing morality and what is morally right or if morally rightness is a thing. It's a tangent upon tangents that has been discussed today, so looping back around to include tangents within tangents is quite the herculean task.

so that's why i'm veering about 'moral imperatives' and 'messaging' and 'rust belt'
Click to expand...


Voting for Trump was indeed voting for sexism, racism, xenophobia, etc... because that's what he represents and that was his campaign.

There was a moral duty to reject white nationalism, to reject the core values Trump represented.

White folk did it in 64 when they rejected Goldwater (the last time the white vote went for the Democrats).

This is election is a moral stain on everyone who voted Trump or third party and especially on white America who failed to do what needed to be done and what was done in 64.

Trump represents the worst of America and folks put him in power.

It is and will always be a moral failure.

This isn't relative it is reality.
 
T

Totakeke

Member
Evangelicals don't care about religion or morals, tea partiers don't care about fiscal conservatism, republicans don't care about crony capitalism... what else about the republican voting bloc have we debunked this election?
 
B

BreezyLimbo

Banned
excelsiorlef said:
Voting for Trump was indeed voting for sexism, racism, xenophobia, etc... because that's what he represents and that was his campaign.

There was a moral duty to reject white nationalism, to reject the core values Trump represented.

White folk did it in 64 when they rejected Goldwater (the last time the white vote went for the Democrats).

This is election is a moral stain on everyone who voted Trump or third party and especially on white America who failed to do what needed to be done and what was done in 64.

Trump represents the worst of America and folks put him in power.

It is and will always be a moral failure.

This isn't relative it is reality.
Click to expand...

And all I'm saying is if you keep saying these voters were moral failures

they'll just rally up and keep voting for people like Trump. It's why the 'deplorable' comment by Clinton was so short-sighted-Yes, she is correct. Trump did garner deplorables to vote for him. And you know what they did? They weren't shamed into voting Democrat or not voting at all, if anything they empowered themselves with the 'deplorable' label. The only reality is that morality did not win. And if you continue with the rhetoric of calling every trump voter 'A moral stain', they will only dig in their heels and continue under that path.

Quite frankly, it's going to piss people off that next election, barring completely catastrophic failure from Trump, Democrats are going to have to appeal to Trump voters. Many will yell and say 'Democrats don't represent me and I won't vote for them' because of this, but if Democrats want to win, they will have to appeal to the voters who didn't come out for Hillary.

What I'm trying to say is, that morality is nice. But morality doesn't win elections. Morality, by itself, does not induce progress.

Or we could, iunno, send a bunch of californians and New yorkians to live in swing states since our states are overflowing anyways.
 
C

Chumley

Banned
TheLaughingStock said:
Her messaging wasn't fucked up. 62 million folks in the right place at the right time fundamentally disagree with her ideology and what establishment Democrats stand for. 65 million on her side wasn't enough to overcome that.
Click to expand...

80,000 votes. That was it. She wasn't inspiring enough to get those extra 80,000 votes in the states where it mattered. If she would have won those she'd have as big a victory as Obama did in 2012.
 
C

Chumley

Banned
Retromelon said:
A tweet read on fox news a few minutes ago: "California and New York do not run this country. The founders' brilliance saves us again."

I swear I can hear your collective screams
Click to expand...

Lmao. Vote to let California secede, then. See what happens. America's economy would be so fucked.

It's a complete injustice that CA isn't weighted more heavily than it is in the EC.
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
BreezyLimbo said:
And all I'm saying is if you keep saying these voters were moral failures

they'll just rally up and keep voting for people like Trump. It's why the 'deplorable' comment by Clinton was so short-sighted-Yes, she is correct. Trump did garner deplorables to vote for him. And you know what they did? They weren't shamed into voting Democrat or not voting at all, if anything they empowered themselves with the 'deplorable' label. The only reality is that morality did not win. And if you continue with the rhetoric of calling every trump voter 'A moral stain', they will only dig in their heels and continue under that path.

Quite frankly, it's going to piss people off that next election, barring completely catastrophic failure from Trump, Democrats are going to have to appeal to Trump voters. Many will yell and say 'Democrats don't represent me and I won't vote for them' because of this, but if Democrats want to win, they will have to appeal to the voters who didn't come out for Hillary.

What I'm trying to say is, that morality is nice. But morality doesn't win elections. Morality, by itself, does not induce progress.

Or we could, iunno, send a bunch of californians and New yorkians to live in swing states since our states are overflowing anyways.
Click to expand...


Never said it was an election strategy, but it is asinine to pretend that what I said isn't the case.
 
C

Chumley

Banned
BreezyLimbo said:
And all I'm saying is if you keep saying these voters were moral failures

they'll just rally up and keep voting for people like Trump. It's why the 'deplorable' comment by Clinton was so short-sighted-Yes, she is correct. Trump did garner deplorables to vote for him. And you know what they did? They weren't shamed into voting Democrat or not voting at all, if anything they empowered themselves with the 'deplorable' label. The only reality is that morality did not win. And if you continue with the rhetoric of calling every trump voter 'A moral stain', they will only dig in their heels and continue under that path.

Quite frankly, it's going to piss people off that next election, barring completely catastrophic failure from Trump, Democrats are going to have to appeal to Trump voters. Many will yell and say 'Democrats don't represent me and I won't vote for them' because of this, but if Democrats want to win, they will have to appeal to the voters who didn't come out for Hillary.

What I'm trying to say is, that morality is nice. But morality doesn't win elections. Morality, by itself, does not induce progress.

Or we could, iunno, send a bunch of californians and New yorkians to live in swing states since our states are overflowing anyways.
Click to expand...

The country is going to tear itself apart if we continue to degrade the moral standard in government. People who care passionately about womens rights and dignity, minorities, people who live in cities vs. rural america and the alt-right. That's where it's headed, and dems throwing their hands up and giving up on morality is not a winning strategy. People didn't stay home because Hillary wasn't dirty and despicable enough, they stayed home because she didn't excite them.

The dems can be aggressive as fuck and not back down from annihilating Trump's base without stooping to his level of moral depravity. I also guarantee Bernie would not have gotten a quarter the blowback Hillary did if he would have said the racists and homophobes and ableists in Trump's base are deplorable. The reason that stuck to her is because of her reputation as someone in an ivory tower who can't relate, and that she's a woman.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Tales of Graces f Remastered - Reviews Thread
23
1K
Paltheos replied
Bringing Dune Awakening to the Xbox Series S will be a "challenge", according to Funcom chief product officer
News 2 3
100
5K
mdkirby replied
First time you realized Japanese devs were GOAT?
Drama Retro Game Dev 2 3
118
4K
Spukc replied
Modern Game Devs Suck at Community Support
2
60
3K
Reizo Ryuu replied
Players are now less "accepting" that games will be fixed, say Paradox, after "underestimating" the reaction to Cities: Skylines 2's performance woes
Game Dev
47
2K
Quantum253 replied
Top Bottom