Support NeoGAF

[BreezyLimbo]

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

To us, it's a moral failure.

To them, it's a moral victory. I wish I could say that their view is completely wrong, but theres millions of them. There will always be millions of them. It becomes relative after a point. To us, it's a moral failure in this country. To them, it's a morale victory that they, the underdogs, managed to win.

So yes, unfortunately it's all relative.

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.

These next 4 years are going to be a test of our nation. Whether or not because she's a woman, or whether Bernie would'n't have gotten blowback is up in the air. Like you mentioned, we lost by 80,000 votes in 3 states. Maybe it was messaging. Maybe it wasn't. Either way, it was ours to lose.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

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.

You can't square this with the margins though. If we lost this thing by 5 million votes, then we'd have to cross over and get some of them. Instead we just need to get a few thousand non-voters to vote instead. That would win elections without appealing to white supremacists.

I will not vote for a candidate that panders to this. It's why if someone like Tulsi got the nom in 2020, I'd just write someone else in and vote downticket instead. A party or candidate has to stand for certain things if I'm going to vote for them. I will not budge on this. It is the fundamental difference between us and them; they saw all of the terrible things that Trump is, and they said "Sounds fine." If the Dems nominate a left-wing Trump, then I will not fall in line.

 

[Aaronology]

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.

Appealing to the voters who sat this election out and appealing to the voters who backed Trump are two very different things. Why do you believe Democrats need to do the latter?

 

[kess]

Thing is, the Republicans voted for morality in their own, twisted, ethically questionable way. At this juncture, Democrats cannot afford to twist in the wind, spineless, craven, and dishonorable. They need to present at least an illusion that what they believe is right. LBJ walked across that fucking lobby.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Appealing to the voters who sat this election out and appealing to the voters who backed Trump are two very different things. Why do you believe Democrats need to do the latter?

because something happened in those 3 states, where they were blue for Obama, they switched red for trump. The week after the election, it was either nate silver or one of those pollsters who said that people who voted for obama, voted for trump this time around. so either way, you're going to have to appeal to those voters that switched to trump.

 

[excelsiorlef]

To us, it's a moral failure.

To them, it's a moral victory. I wish I could say that their view is completely wrong, but theres millions of them. There will always be millions of them. It becomes relative after a point. To us, it's a moral failure in this country. To them, it's a morale victory that they, the underdogs, managed to win.

So yes, unfortunately it's all relative.

Nope,

This is nonsense, there are millions who think climate change isn't real, there are millions who think vaccines cause autism, there are probably even millions who think the earth is flat and there were millions (and probably still are millions) who thought (think) the holocaust was good,

All these are wrong.

Moral relativism in face of an overt white supremacist, and overt sexist /racist, is preposterous.

They are wrong, and you do no one any favours of pretending to otherwise just because there are millions, mass psychosis is still psychosis not reality.

Racism is bad
Sexism is bad

These are not up for debate... ever.

This is how the overton window becomes lost in the Forrest of white nationalism, when you can't even stand up and say that racism is objectively bad.

You really want to ruin the Democrats forever by all means adopt moral relativism... both sides become the same if one side refuses to condemn bigotry as immoral.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Nope,

This is nonsense, there are millions who think climate change isn't real, there are millions who think vaccines cause autism, there are probably even millions who think the earth is flat and there were millions (and probably still are millions) who thought (think) the holocaust was good,

All these are wrong.

Moral relativism in face of an overt white supremacist, and overt sexist /racist, is preposterous.

They are wrong, and you do no one any favours of pretending to otherwise just because there are millions, mass psychosis is still psychosis not reality.

Racism is bad
Sexism is bad

These are not up for debate... ever.

Morality and Science don't mix. Bringing in Climate Change, Vaccines, and Flat Earthers isn't about morality.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Thing is, the Republicans voted for morality in their own, twisted, ethically questionable way. At this juncture, Democrats cannot afford to twist in the wind, spineless, craven, and dishonorable. They need to present at least an illusion that what they believe is right. LBJ walked across that fucking lobby.

I've been really happy with some of the recent comments. Schumer publicly telling the GOP that he's not going to stop them from shooting themselves in the foot is fucking gold. Need more Harry Reid types.

because something happened in those 3 states, where they were blue for Obama, they switched red for trump. The week after the election, it was either nate silver or one of those pollsters who said that people who voted for obama, voted for trump this time around. so either way, you're going to have to appeal to those voters that switched to trump.

You're still ignoring the point. If those voters switched, they still find white nationalism acceptable. Write them off and then try to win those few thousand votes by swaying non-voters, who did not explicitly vote for a white nationalist.

There's more than 2 camps here. Hillary voters, Trump voters, and half the country that didn't vote.

 

[kess]

Show me a politican who can't tell the difference between right and wrong, and I'll show you a loser.

Republicans have moral certitude. Elections are won on it.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Morality and Science don't mix. Bringing in Climate Change, Vaccines, and Flat Earthers isn't about morality.

They are objective truths, the same way racism, sexism and bigotry are wrong is an objective truth.

I also used the Holocaust....

Your argument literally was since millions believe it we can't say it's wrong. Fuck that.

If Dems bend on this fact ems are finished.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

You're still ignoring the point. If those voters switched, they still find white nationalism acceptable. Write them off and then try to win those few thousand votes by swaying non-voters, who did not explicitly vote for a white nationalist.

There's more than 2 camps here. Hillary voters, Trump voters, and half the country that didn't vote.

And I'm saying that those voters are not a monolith who all find white nationalism acceptable. Not only white people voted for Trump. People who voted for trump, are not a monolith.

 

[excelsiorlef]

And I'm saying that those voters are not a monolith who all find white nationalism acceptable. Not only white people voted for Trump. People who voted for trump, are not a monolith.

I mean inherently they do.

That' what he campaigned on if they voted him into power they are fine with white nationalism, even if that's not why they'll claim they voted for him.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

They are objective truths, the same way racism, sexism and bigotry are wrong is an objective truth.

I also used the Holocaust....

Your argument literally was since millions believe it we can't say it's wrong. Fuck that.

If Dems bend on this fact ems are finished.

They are objective truths, the same way racism, sexism and bigotry are wrong is an objective truth.

I also used the Holocaust....

If Dems bend on this fact ems are finished.

Yes, I agree with that. But the fact is, there are huge parts of this world where bigotry and sexism are the standard and are the on the right side of the morality scale for those places. For example, the Middle East tends to be anti-LGBT and very misogynist, and to them that is right and to them it is their objective truth.

Now, we're not trying to appeal to those people. But in America, sexism and bigotry is still on the fringe of being an accepted truth, and right now it is shaking, trying to hold on to those truths. We are in a position where we cannot tell them they are wrong and expect them to get in line. This is why insulting them to their face, saying that they're morally reprehensible and vile people for believing or voting for someone who will enable that won't help our case. Because the people that believe that is right or ignore it, will continue believing it and dig in their heels even more. That is why we need different messaging towards these people, whether or not you agree with that messaging.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

And I'm saying that those voters are not a monolith who all find white nationalism acceptable. Not only white people voted for Trump. People who voted for trump, are not a monolith.

If you voted for a white nationalist, then you found it acceptable. This is very basic stuff here.

The converse would be "If you don't find white nationalism acceptable, then you would not vote for a white nationalist."

And you're still ignoring the point I've made multiple times. Why ignore the half of the country that didn't vote?

 

[kess]

Unless you think there's someone in the center who has a principled stand of moderation vis a vis racism and global warming, pulling to the center isn't going to bring in any new voters. The correct response should be "fuck this, here's why," not "this is terrible, let me meet you in the middle."

 

[BreezyLimbo]

If you voted for a white nationalist, then you found it acceptable. This is very basic stuff here.

The converse would be "If you don't find white nationalism acceptable, then you would not vote for a white nationalist."

And you're still ignoring the point I've made multiple times. Why ignore the half of the country that didn't vote?

And who's going to get half that country to vote? It seems like every election, half the country is not voting.

A white nationalist rears his head, and half that country is still not voting. We're in a critical moment of our country, and half our country is not voting. What are your solutions to get that half of the country to vote? Even with obama in 08, half the country did not vote.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Yes, I agree with that. But the fact is, there are huge parts of this world where bigotry and sexism are the standard and are the on the right side of the morality scale for those places. For example, the Middle East tends to be anti-LGBT and very misogynist, and to them that is right and to them it is their objective truth.

Now, we're not trying to appeal to those people. But in America, sexism and bigotry is still on the fringe of being an accepted truth, and right now it is shaking, trying to hold on to those truths. We are in a position where we cannot tell them they are wrong and expect them to get in line. This is why insulting them to their face, saying that they're morally reprehensible and vile people for believing or voting for someone who will enable that won't help our case. Because the people that believe that is right or ignore it, will continue believing it and dig in their heels even more. That is why we need different messaging towards these people, whether or not you agree with that messaging.

Why do you keep talking about insulting them to their face.

I already said this conversation is not about election strategy it is about simply stating that there are in fact moral truths and those include racism/sexism/bigotry is bad no matter if billions believe it not to be.

You keep arguing moral relativism, I am telling you this isn't relative.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Why do you keep talking about insulting them to their face.

I already said this conversation is not about election strategy it is about simply stating that there are in fact moral truths and those include racism/sexism/bigotry is bad no matter if billions believe it not to be.

You keep arguing moral relativism, I am telling you this isn't relative.

But it's all relative. To Republicans, to those that voted Trump, to them Trump ran a campaign on making America Great. That is their relativism. That is one of those realities that this election has showed us, that moral truth is subjective to half of the country that voted.

 

[excelsiorlef]

But it's all relative. To Republicans, to those that voted Trump, to them Trump ran a campaign on making America Great. That is their relativism. That is one of those realities that this election has showed us, that moral truth is subjective to half of the country that voted.

Again mass psychosis is not reality, it is still psychosis.

Lots of people believing something doesn't make it true.

Trump ran a racist campaign that is a fact it is not up for opinion. End of story, if we compromise on that we've actually lost and lost for good.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Again mass psychosis is not reality, it is still psychosis.

Lots of people believing something doesn't make it true.

Trump ran a racist campaign that is a fact it is not up for opinion. End of story, if we compromise on that we've actually lost and lost for good.

And here you are saying you're not insulting anyone

go tell everyone who voted trump they suffered from mass psychosis.

 

[kess]

And here you are saying you're not insulting anyone

go tell everyone who voted trump they suffered from mass psychosis.

Running a half racist campaign will insult their intelligence as much as it insults ours.

 

[excelsiorlef]

And here you are saying you're not insulting anyone

go tell everyone who voted trump they suffered from mass psychosis. Grats, you lost them forever.

Dude it is an analogy...

Your entire argument is that because they believe it is reality (or their reality or whatever).

To which no because by that logic mass psychosis wouldn't be a thing because it would just be mass relative reality. But it is not, when a group of people suffer mass psychosis they break from reality, what they perceive is still not actual reality just because a lot of them are experiencing it. Likewise believing an objective truth to be false does not stop that objective truth from still be you know true.

They can believe Trump didn't run a racist campaign, but he did, they're believing it wasn't racist doesn't actually change reality.

And for like the millionth time, this is not campaign strategy I am talking about.

If we can stand up and say racism , sexism and bigotry is morally wrong end of story, we're fucking useless.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Dude it is an analogy...

Your entire argument is that because they believe it is reality (or their reality or whatever).

To which no because by that logic mass psychosis wouldn't be a thing because it would just be mass relative reality. But it is not, when a group of people suffer mass psychosis they break from reality, what they perceive is still not actual reality just because a lot of them are experiencing it. Likewise believing an objective truth too be false does not stop that objective truth from still be you know true.

They can believe Trump didn't run a racist campaign, but he did, they're believing it wasn't racist doesn't actually change reality.

And for like the millionth time, this is not campaign strategy I am talking about.

Why do you keep talking about campaign strategy. I'm talking about morality and why claiming that there is only one correct morality is shortsighted, because there are tons of different moralities that people follow.

And saying they suffered from Mass Psychosis isn't an analogy. For anything. Trump ran on multiple things, just like Clinton didn't just run on Minorities. It's possible people voted for Trump because he ran on those different things.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Why do you keep talking about campaign strategy. I'm talking about morality and why claiming that there is only one correct morality is shortsighted.

And saying they suffered from Mass Psychosis isn't an analogy. For anything. Trump ran on multiple things, just like Clinton didn't just run on Minorities. It's possible people voted for Trump because he ran on those different things.

...

I didn't say they suffered from mass psychosis...

I was pointing out the inherent fallacy of your argument that a lot of people believing somethings means it is on some level reality.

If the voted for him because of tax breaks or 'job promises" they still said with their vote that they are at least willing to tolerate white supremacy in the White House...

I said campaign strategy because you are acting like how I talk here is how I would talk out there.

And I'm saying if we can't stand up and say racism and bigotry is wrong period, then we are useless.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

...

I didn't say they suffered from mass psychosis...

I was pointing out the inherent fallacy of your argument that a lot of people believing somethings means it is on some level reality.

If the voted for him because of tax breaks or 'job promises" they still said with their vote that they are at least willing to tolerate white supremacy in the White House...

I said campaign strategy because you are acting like how I talk here is how I would talk out there.

And I'm saying if we can't stand up and say Racism and bigotry is wrong period, then we are useless.

Then why bring up mass psychosis at all, if not to insult them, and then concede that they might've voted him for tax breaks or job promises, thus making your analogy of mass psychosis...a bad analogy? To them, tolerating a guy who whistled at white supremacists very openly is better than the competition. Because to them, jobs are more important.

That is their viewpoint, if not their moral viewpoint.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Why do you keep talking about campaign strategy. I'm talking about morality and why claiming that there is only one correct morality is shortsighted, because there are tons of different moralities that people follow.

And saying they suffered from Mass Psychosis isn't an analogy. For anything. Trump ran on multiple things, just like Clinton didn't just run on Minorities. It's possible people voted for Trump because he ran on those different things.

If someone says to me, "if you vote for me, I'm going to give you a cookie and hit that old lady across the street with a bat," guess who I'm not taking a cookie from?

 

[royalan]

If someone says to me, "if you vote for me, I'm going to give you a cookie and hit that old lady across the street with a bat," guess who I'm not taking a cookie from?

Exactly.

Trump ran on racism, sexism, and nationalism. You don't absolve yourself from the heinous choice you made voting for that because there are a lot of you, or because he somehow conned you into believing he'd get you a job.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Then why bring up mass psychosis at all, if not to insult them, and then concede that they might've voted him for tax breaks or job promises, thus making your analogy of mass psychosis...a bad analogy? To them, tolerating a guy who whistled at white supremacists very openly is better than the competition. Because to them, jobs are more important.

That is their viewpoint, if not their moral viewpoint.

Serious?

I literally just explained that.

My point about mass psychosis had nothing to do with them it had to do with your argument vis a vis moral relativism...

Your argument essentially is that since millions think Trump wasn't racist we can't say he objectively was...

Your argument inherently hinges on the idea that if enough people believe something we can't say it isn't reality, we can't say that it isn't true.

Which is why I made my analogy to mass psychosis (and climate change, and vaccines and the Holocaust), because extending your logic we'd have to say that people suffering mass psychosis aren't experiencing psychosis, they're experiencing their relative reality... Which no.

And right to those who didn't vote on racism white supremacy is acceptable if it means "jobs". Which goes right back to what I said ages ago, Trump voters at the absolute least are ok with White Nationalism in the White House. That is a fact.

And Trump didn't whistle at it, Trump threw out the dog whistle and brought out the megaphone. He hired people like Bannon. He ran on that shit explicitly.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Serious?

I literally just explained that.

My point about mass psychosis had nothing to do with them it had to do with your argument vis a vis moral relativism...

Your argument essentially is that since millions think Trump wasn't racist we can't say he objectively was...

Your argument inherently hinges on the idea that if enough people believe something we can't say it isn't reality, we can't say that it isn't true.

Which is why I made my analogy to mass psychosis (and climate change, and vaccines and the Holocaust), because extending your logic we'd have to say that people suffering mass psychosis aren't experiencing psychosis, they're experiencing their relative reality... Which no.

And right to those who didn't vote on racism white supremacy is acceptable if it means "jobs". Which goes right back to what I said ages ago, Trump voters at the absolute least are ok with White Nationalism in the White House. That is a fact.

And Trump didn't whistle at it, Trump threw out the dog whistle and brought out the megaphone. He hired people like Bannon. He ran on that shit explicitly.

Because voting for trump because he lulled you into thinking he would bring back jobs is the same as denying the holocaust. Or the same as climate denial. It's the same as mass psychosis, surely. It's almost as if Trumps platform ran on multiple things and not just white nationalism. And guess what, to some people, those things such as jobs are more important to them then what he may or may not do to immigrants. To write equate their views with the analogy of 'mass psychosis' is to belittle their position.

Are you denying that there are people who believed he would bring jobs back? That their problems were not represented by Clinton? That they disagreed with Trumps white nationalism but saw him as the only choice against what they thought was a warhawk in Hillary? Or will you just write them off? Also, I'm not saying that we can't objectively say he was racist, he was-I'm saying that your objective morals are yours. Not theirs. What's objective to you, is subjected to them. And what's objective to them, is subjective to you.

Exactly.

Trump ran on racism, sexism, and nationalism. You don't absolve yourself from the heinous choice you made voting for that because there are a lot of you, or because he somehow conned you into believing he'd get you a job.

Are you willing to write off 60 million people for the rest of your life because they voted for trump? Even if they change their tune in another election, are you willing to think of them as heinous for voting Trump?

This is why I think it's short sighted to write those people off permanently. Because view points, a persons morality, isn't so black and white as one would put it.

Yes, they made the wrong choice in this election. Yes, they were morally reprehensible in their decision to vote for Trump. But I can also see it from their point of view. 62 million people voted for Trump. They are not all white supremacists, and probably not all of them agree with white supremacy(Remember, no matter how small, he got some of the minority vote), but his message of bringing jobs back and making america great(Especially in the rust belt) really struck a chord with them. To them, everything else, from the pussy grabbing to the mexicans are rapists, was just circumstance.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Because voting for trump because he lulled you into thinking he would bring back jobs is the same as denying the holocaust. Or the same as climate denial. It's the same as mass psychosis, surely. It's almost as if Trumps platform ran on multiple things and not just white nationalism. And guess what, to some people, those things such as jobs are more important to them then what he may or may not do to immigrants. To write equate their views with the analogy of 'mass psychosis' is to belittle their position.


.

Serious question are you actually reading anything I'm saying?

I've explained like 15 times that my analogies are about your general philosophy on moral relativism... It is about your specific philosophical argument not the people you are defending with it.

Also yes Trump ran on not just White Nationalism... but he also did actually run on white nationalism... you have to be on some level ok with white nationalism to vote for Trump, this is not a challenging suggestion it is literally true.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Serious question are you actually reading anything I'm saying?

I've explained like 15 times that my analogies are about your general philosophy on moral relativism... It is about your specific philosophical argument not the people you are defending with it.

Also yes Trump ran on not just White Nationalism... but he also did actually run on white nationalism... you have to be on some level ok with white nationalism to vote for Trump, this is not a challenging suggestion it is literally true.

And I'm saying that morality in the end is subjective. The morals of 100 years ago are not the morals of today. Because of that, morality is not objective. It's something that changes over time, it's something that changes over time, to suit the majority.

Climate change is objective, because we are going down the road of the world overheating. That is objective. The world will not stop warming. The Holocaust killed millions of Jewish people. That is objective. These things, for lack of finesse, can be measured.

However, what are right morals and what are wrong morals? That is subjective, unfortunately. Yes, you and I can say that things like 'Grab her by the pussy' are morally wrong, but the reality is that to others that is simply 'locker room talk'. Because it's all relative.

It's fine that you're morally absolutist. It's fine that I find relativism in morality, because that is the crossroads that we have reached in this country.

 

[excelsiorlef]

And I'm saying that morality in the end is subjective. The morals of 100 years ago are not the morals of today. Because of that, morality is not objective. It's something that changes over time, it's something that changes over time, to suit the majority.

Climate change is objective, because we are going down the road of the world overheating. That is objective. The world will not stop warming. The Holocaust killed millions of Jewish people. That is objective. These things, for lack of finesse, can be measured.

However, what are right morals and what are wrong morals? That is subjective, unfortunately. Yes, you and I can say that things like 'Grab her by the pussy' are morally wrong, but the reality is that to others that is simply 'locker room talk'. Because it's all relative.

It's fine that you're morally absolutist. It's fine that I find relativism in morality, because that is the crossroads that we have reached in this country.

Like I said we're usless as progressives of we can't say thar racism, sexism and bigotry is inherently wrong. We're fucking useless if we refuse to say Trump is a racist and sexist who ran racist and sexist campaign.


Btw slavery was just as wrong when it was legal as it is now.

Let me ask you this are you unwilling to say that the following things are absolutely true:

1) Trump is a racist, sexist, bigot
2) He campaigned on White Supremacy
3) Racism, Sexism, Bigotry are inherently and factually wrong.

That these things are not relative?

 

[Pixieking]

And I'm saying that morality in the end is subjective. The morals of 100 years ago are not the morals of today. Because of that, morality is not objective. It's something that changes over time, it's something that changes over time, to suit the majority.

Climate change is objective, because we are going down the road of the world overheating. That is objective. The world will not stop warming. The Holocaust killed millions of Jewish people. That is objective. These things, for lack of finesse, can be measured.

However, what are right morals and what are wrong morals? That is subjective, unfortunately. Yes, you and I can say that things like 'Grab her by the pussy' are morally wrong, but the reality is that to others that is simply 'locker room talk'. Because it's all relative.

It's fine that you're morally absolutist. It's fine that I find relativism in morality, because that is the crossroads that we have reached in this country.

You can start by saying that those things which are deemed illegal are also morally wrong.

Grabbing women by the pussy may have been morally acceptable 50 years ago, but it's currently classed as sexual assault.
Not paying your contractors? That's technically illegal, right?
Saying Mexicans are rapists and murderers? Whilst that is still morally acceptable in a lot of places I'm sure, I'm also sure that it would be classed incitement to violence and hatred (does the US have "hate crime" like the UK?).
Even Trump raping his first wife is illegal now. Whilst marital rape wasn't really recognised when it happened, now it is.

So, already, 4 of the most infamous things which Trump has been accused of are morally wrong due to the letter of the law as it is now.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Like I said we're usless as progressives of we can't say thar racism, sexism and bigotry is inherently wrong. We're fucking useless if we refuse to say Trump is a racist and sexist who ran racist and sexist campaign.


Btw slavery was just as wrong when it was legal as it is now.

Let me ask you this are you unwilling to say that the following things are absolutely true:

1) Trump is a racist, sexist, bigot
2) He campaigned on White Supremacy
3) Racism, Sexism, Bigotry are inherently and factually wrong.

That these things are not relative?

Those things are true. I'm not trying to say that Trump didn't run on these things.

I'm trying to say that the people who voted for Trump, that they are not a monolith, and that they didn't believe Trump would go through with what he said about minorities, or that it was locker room trump, or whatever. That is relative, what they believe.

And yes, slavery is bad. Why are you bringing up slavery? Is this some gotcha? I acknowledge that the morals of 200 years ago were different to the morals of today.

You can start by saying that those things which are deemed illegal are also morally wrong.

Grabbing women by the pussy may have been morally acceptable 50 years ago, but it's currently classed as sexual assault.
Not paying your contractors? That's technically illegal, right?
Saying Mexicans are rapists and murderers? Whilst that is still morally acceptable in a lot of places I'm sure, I'm also sure that it would be classed incitement to violence and hatred (does the US have "hate crime" like the UK?).
Even Trump raping his first wife is illegal now. Whilst marital rape wasn't really recognised when it happened, now it is.

So, already, 4 of the most infamous things which Trump has been accused of are morally wrong due to the letter of the law as it is now.

And yet he isn't in prison. It's almost as if these objectively, morally wrong things are not the letter of the law, because the law has not struck down on him. If morality was absolutely objective, Trump would be in a prison cell. And yet he's not. I'd personally prefer him in a prison cell.

 

[A Link to the Past]

To me, the strengthening of gerrymandering and voter ID laws is proof on top of proof that if we don't exploit things to force Merrick Garland through, , we won't see reform for either of these things for most of my lifetime.

 

[Pixieking]

And yet he isn't in prison. It's almost as if these objectively, morally wrong things are not the letter of the law, because the law has not struck down on him. If morality was absolutely objective, Trump would be in a prison cell. And yet he's not. I'd personally prefer him in a prison cell.

Well, I think you can argue that the subjectivity at work here is that of law-enforcement, individuals, and the law. For example, statute of limitations means he can't be charged for the rape, or the sexual assaults, afaik. The contractors have to go through the courts to enforce payment. Which, of my examples, leaves incitement to hatred and violence, and I am absolutely confused why Trump doesn't seem to have been visited by the FBI/DHS, especially considering the acts of violence and abuse perpetrated by his supporters.

Also, let's not kid ourselves that if these things had been done by an Hispanic or African American that the letter of the law wouldn't be brought down on them with full force.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Well, I think you can argue that the subjectivity at work here is that of law-enforcement, individuals, and the law. For example, statute of limitations means he can't be charged for the rape, or the sexual assaults, afaik. The contractors have to go through the courts to enforce payment. Which, of my examples, leaves incitement to hatred and violence, and I am absolutely confused why Trump doesn't seem to have been visited by the FBI/DHS, especially considering the acts of violence and abuse perpetrated by his supporters.

Also, let's not kid ourselves that if these things had been done by an Hispanic or African American that the letter of the law wouldn't be brought down on them with full force.

I don't disagree with anything you said. Law enforcement does follow their own morals. The Blue Line is after all, an inclination of their moral code.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Those things are true. I'm not trying to say that Trump didn't run on these things.

Then you aren't actually arguing moral realitivism at all.

I'm trying to say that the people who voted for Trump, that they are not a monolith, and that they didn't believe Trump would go through with what he said about minorities, or that it was locker room trump, or whatever. That is relative, what they believe.

They aren't but it is still true that at the end of the day they are ok to varying degrees with White Nationalism in the White House because that was a key part of his campaign. Bannon was a huge part of his team.

And yes, slavery is bad. Why are you bringing up slavery? Is this some gotcha? I acknowledge that the morals of 200 years ago were different to the morals of today.

My example of slavery was not a gotcha... how would that be a gotcha? Hell why I brought it up is to say the exact opposite of the bolded. Moral reality didn't change, it was always wrong, what changed is the number of people who accepted that moral reality.

And yet he isn't in prison. It's almost as if these objectively, morally wrong things are not the letter of the law, because the law has not struck down on him. If morality was absolutely objective, Trump would be in a prison cell. And yet he's not. I'd personally prefer him in a prison cell.

Plenty of people don't go to jail when they should doesn't mean that what they did wasn't morally wrong.

I'm going to use an extreme example, and in advance no it is not a gotcha, marital rape was legal for a very long time... that doesn't mean raping your wife wasn't morally wrong

 

[Dominican Power]

WTF Harry Reid? Trump is not as bad as you thought he'd be? He isn't even in office yet.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

WTF Harry Reid? Trump is not as bad as you thought he'd be? He isn't even in office yet.

Democrats lol

Trump is playing them like a fiddle

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Then you aren't actually arguing moral realitivism at all.

They aren't but it is still true that at the end of the day they are ok to varying degrees with White Nationalism in the White House because that was a key part of his campaign. Bannon was a huge part of his team.

My example of slavery was not a gotcha... how would that be a gotcha? Hell why I brought it up is to say the exact opposite of the bolded. Moral reality didn't change, it was always wrong, what changed is the number of people who accepted that moral reality.

Plenty of people don't go to jail when they should doesn't mean that what they did wasn't morally wrong.

I'm going to use an extreme example, and in advance no it is not a gotcha, marital rape was legal for a very long time... that doesn't mean raping your wife wasn't morally wrong

Don't look at me people said I was arguing moral relativism and I just kinda rolled with it.

Yeah, they are ok with a white nationalist in the white house because they believe he won't act on those urges. Well, some of them might believe that. Some probably believe he'll go full KK.

Moral reality did change. It changed slowly during the 1700s, and quickly quickly the mid 1800s, where slavery stopped becoming accepted as it was and led towards the civil war due to disagreement in the union. You saying 'it was always wrong' is only because we are able to look at it from a modern lens, from a modern viewpoint, where we can absolutely say it was wrong on all accounts. We have that privilege, a privilege that people did not have at the foundation of our country. Saying it was always morally wrong to own slaves, is incorrect because at that time, in the late 1700's and for a majority of the 1800's, it was morally right to be able to own slaves. It is anachronistic to put the belief that it was always wrong, when in fact 200 years ago it was not.

As for your last example, during the times where it was legal to rape your wife, it was not wrong to them. It is wrong to us because again, we can view the past through our lens. To suggest otherwise is to serve anachronism, that is projecting our modern beliefs to that of the past.

Times change. To suggest that something was always wrong or always right when that's not the case, is to wash history with anachronism, and I will not be a part of that. There was a time where much of the human race thought that slavery is ok. That treating women as a lesser is ok. And at that time, it was morally, objectively, acceptable. But times change. To suggest anachronistically that something was always wrong, is to incorrectly apply your viewpoint to that of the past, and to take away from how society has evolved from those barbaric times. And because of that we are able to view these points of history, and learn from them for the better. There is no universal law that says 'Something is wrong forever', and to suggest otherwise is to take away from us being able to form our morals for our times.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Don't look at me people said I was arguing moral relativism and I just kinda rolled with it.

Yeah, they are ok with a white nationalist in the white house because they believe he won't act on those urges. Well, some of them might believe that. Some probably believe he'll go full KK.

Moral reality did change. It changed slowly during the 1700s, and quickly quickly the mid 1800s, where slavery stopped becoming accepted as it was and led towards the civil war due to disagreement in the union. You saying 'it was always wrong' is only because we are able to look at it from a modern lens, from a modern viewpoint, where we can absolutely say it was wrong on all accounts. We have that privilege, a privilege that people did not have at the foundation of our country. Saying it was always morally wrong to own slaves, is incorrect because at that time, in the late 1700's and for a majority of the 1800's, it was morally right to be able to own slaves. It is anachronistic to put the belief that it was always wrong, when in fact 200 years ago it was not.

As for your last example, during the times where it was legal to rape your wife, it was not wrong to them. It is wrong to us because again, we can view the past through our lens. To suggest otherwise is to serve anachronism, that is projecting our modern beliefs to that of the past.

Times change. To suggest that something was always wrong or always right when that's not the case, is to wash history with anachronism, and I will not be a part of that. There was a time where much of the human race thought that slavery is ok. That treating women as a lesser is ok. And at that time, it was morally, objectively, acceptable. But times change. To suggest anachronistically that something was always wrong, is to incorrectly apply your viewpoint to that of the past, and to take away from how society has evolved from those barbaric times. And because of that we are able to view these points of history, and learn from them for the better. There is no universal law that says 'Something is wrong forever', and to suggest otherwise is to take away from us being able to form our morals for our times.

See now you're arguing moral relativism.

To say what you said is to say that we can't look at the past a condemn because well they thought they were right at the time.

It also is to argue that things can't be inherently wrong because it's morality by numbers rather than principles. There were people who opposed slavery when slavery was legal, there were people fighting for women's rights when women's rights were nonexistant, people fighting for black civil rights when black folk in America were being denied theirs some with gay folk, trans folk, etc... etc... etc... The morality didn't change... what changed was the numbers on each side.

To say otherwise is to argue for essentially moral tyranny by the majority.
When something is so blatantly wrong it doesn't matter how many people think it is right, it is still wrong.

 

[Tarydax]

WTF Harry Reid? Trump is not as bad as you thought he'd be? He isn't even in office yet.

Oh for fuck's sake. How can any Democrat say with a straight face that they're hopeful about Trump at this point? His cabinet picks have been worse than godawful. I can't think of a single one that doesn't scream "I'm going to fuck you." Beyond that, Trump has already done worse than I would have thought possible with the Taiwan call. It's beyond my comprehension why Reid would say that, especially since he has nothing to lose from calling out Trump for what he is.

I'd think at some point that someone in the Democratic party would have to grow a spine and keep it, but it seems like that might be asking for too much.

 

[Dominican Power]

If congress/senate dems fold, I'm done with them.

 

[BanGy.nz]

Define fold.

 

[Beer Monkey]

If congress/senate dems fold, I'm done with them.

"Done" is defeat in our system.

If they "fold", work to change them.

 

[pigeon]

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.

This is all meaningless mush and the extent of your further argument on this point illustrates exactly what I mean about the loss of moral imperative.

The reason people feel the moral exemption to vote for a white nationalist and sex offender is that arguments exactly like these have given them permission to do so.

 

[Pixieking]

This is all meaningless mush and the extent of your further argument on this point illustrates exactly what I mean about the loss of moral imperative.

The reason people feel the moral exemption to vote for a white nationalist and sex offender is that arguments exactly like these have given them permission to do so.

And Trump himself is the mirror-image of these people - someone for whom sexual assault really is just "locker room talk". Can we be surprised by the moral bankruptcy of 60million+ people when Trump is the physical representation of moral bankruptcy, and he's not been punished or lost anything?

 

[Aaron Strife]

To me, the strengthening of gerrymandering and voter ID laws is proof on top of proof that if we don't exploit things to force Merrick Garland through, , we won't see reform for either of these things for most of my lifetime.

Yup. Obama wanted to make redistricting and giving Democrats an even hand in the process his post-presidential political prerogative (proving prudently the pressures on a president by a petulant parliament). With Trump in office and Republicans in full control of like, everything this is his best shot.

 

[Mortimer Brewster]

Yup. Obama wanted to make redistricting and giving Democrats an even hand in the process his post-presidential political prerogative (proving prudently the pressures on a president by a petulant parliament). With Trump in office and Republicans in full control of like, everything this is his best shot.

Still going on about this absurd fantasy eh? Obama won't want his entire legacy annihilated by the biggest self inflicted gunshot wound in the history of politics. And even if Biden was willing to flush it all down the toilet for that move there is easily half a dozen Senate Dems up for reelection in red states ,that know they might as well pack their bags if they go along with it , This move is tantamount to political suicide ,so they wouldn't get the votes needed even with this trickery. It's not happening, Trump will pick Scalia's replacement preserving the current status quo. Democrats just have to hope that Ginsburg and Breyer can hold out.