Support NeoGAF

[Voysa Reezun]

Except you're not actually getting rid of racism or bigotry, you're just making them afraid to speak out.

I think that's a noble goal. Here in 2016, racists aren't afraid to speak out and to encourage others to be virulent racists as well. There is value in shaming people to shut the fuck up about their racism. Pragmatically, there is likely more value in shaming people to shut up about their racism than there is to hope that insulated racists will suddenly change their minds because they talked to really understanding liberals online.

 

[hawk2025]

I'm not a great fan of the Black Swan due largely to the stodgy prose and excessive length. The statistical treatment is shallow and excessively obsessed with cursing the normal distribution rather than actually explaining any statistical concepts. I do work in applied stats and econometrics so I'm not coming to this as a lay person, of course. But as a pop-econ/pop-psych book I think it does raise valuable points about the error of conventional wisdom.

My biggest takeaway from the book is that when people "give advice" "about their success", it largely consists of repeating their own experience as though it was all deliberate, when in reality we have very little control about things and the advice in question is banal. Go to a lecture on "effective study habits" and observe 10 people give 10 totally different systems that "worked for them" without considering that, in fact, perhaps the true causal mechanism is that they're smart motivated people and the explanation for their success is really just a restatement of who they are rather than anything people can learn from.

This is especially relevant to the post I quoted, which essentially argued "We know Trump is a good politician because he has succeeded where some thought he would fail." -- this is exactly what Taleb was warning against in terms of poor inference.

hm, fair enough.

But I think there's a fairer line on, as you put it, a pop-Statistics book that actually works without resorting to the normal distribution strawman that Taleb builds. My problem with him is that he frames it almost exclusively as a failure of human knowledge, rather than a failure of the limitations of human inference. And I think there are better ways to write pop-Stats/Econ books without being wilfully misleading. They are by no means perfect, but even Freakonomics or Acemoglu's Why Nations Fail don't need to throw away the core to make a simplified point.

Finally, and this is an important one: I think Taleb genuinely, honestly buys his oversimplification.

It's been a good 7-8 years since I've read the book, though.

 

[Dierce]

We hate Trump, but he is actually the hero we deserve by fixing our political system through rise of a functioning center-right party.

We don't know that yet. It is not like the 40% who support the orange turd will suddenly banish.

 

[Officerrob]

No idea why so many of you are hanging on every word Trump says

 

[Gotchaye]

I think that's a noble goal. Here in 2016, racists aren't afraid to speak out and to encourage others to be virulent racists as well. There is value in shaming people to shut the fuck up about their racism. Pragmatically, there is likely more value in shaming people to shut up about their racism than there is to hope that insulated racists will suddenly change their minds because they talked to people online.

To be honest, I don't worry too much about the broader political ramifications of my participation in discussions online. Mostly I'm selfish. I want to prod people with viewpoints I don't feel I understand so that I can come to understand them better, I want to sharpen my arguments for things that I'm very confident of already, and, yeah, sometimes (I think very rarely and only when they're a jerk to me personally first) I'm mean to somebody because it amuses me. I'm mostly interested in the conversation I and twenty other people are having with pigeon because I want to get clear on what I (should) think about being mean to people with disgusting opinions online.

 

[Rebel Leader]

No idea why so many of you are hanging on every word Trump says

Because there's a chance they will matter.

 

[Crocodile]

If people are being racist/sexist/etc. or supporting someone for the highest office in the land who is obviously racist/sexist/etc. and you aren't allowed to call them out on that, how do you even talk to said people? Do you just not interact with them and let them stew in awfulness? Like you don't have to call them a piece of shit to their faces to start with but........these are objectively odious positions. Like you can try to intellectually explain why they are wrong but there is only so much you can do in that regard, so much patience you can exert, etc. They deserved to be pushed back against, criticized and called out.

 

[davepoobond]

We hate Trump, but he is actually the hero we deserve by fixing our political system through rise of a functioning center-right party.

i dont think the GOP is going to spit out the crazy, its just going to go more crazy.

if it spits out the center-right, i think they're just going to be swallowed by the democrats instead of making a 3rd party.

 

[ampere]

I don't think it's a problem to ask Trump supporters who decide to post in this thread how they are able to put aside Trump's bigoted policies and statements when talking about their support for him. There's no reason to give all that stuff a pass so that they can talk about some trade deal or foreign policy statement Trump has made that they find solid. Imagine if we have a major party candidate who says they think personhood for X religion or race should be redacted. Do we just shrug that off and let people discuss economic policy Y or Z and not bring up the bigotry? Why?

This is slightly more extreme than Trump's position, but not by that much. He questions the right of American Muslims to be here which is completely counter to the fact they have rights as people and citizens.

Another fundamental problem with Trump is his temperament is not befitting the Commander in Chief in charge of nuclear weapons. The only attempted argument I've seen for why this is not a problem is that "he'll have smarter people advising him". This is not a sufficient argument since the president has full control over nuclear launch decisions, and Trump currently has people smarter than him advising him on basic tasks that he doesn't adhere to.

I'm not seeing any credible reasons that Trump deserves support, and if those can't be presented by the Trump supporters, why should we give them the time of day?

 

[A Link to the Past]

We don't know that yet. It is not like the 40% who support the orange turd will suddenly banish.

Furthermore, the fact that the appeal to white evangelicals in 2008 only made the party go further right in 2012 suggests that Trump is only going to result in more far-right extremists popping up.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

To be honest, I don't worry too much about the broader political ramifications of my participation in discussions online. Mostly I'm selfish. I want to prod people with viewpoints I don't feel I understand so that I can come to understand them better, I want to sharpen my arguments for things that I'm very confident of already, and, yeah, sometimes (I think very rarely and only when they're a jerk to me personally first) I'm mean to somebody because it amuses me. I'm mostly interested in the conversation I and twenty other people are having with pigeon because I want to get clear on what I (should) think about being mean to people with disgusting opinions online.

I typically don't think about any of those things either; mostly, I'm here to learn because there are people posting here with expertise in policy and law that I'll never have no matter how many books I read (so I suppose that I have similar aims as you).

When someone says that they support someone who is clearly racist, I do point out that their vote directly makes my life harder and claim that they don't really care about me personally. That's shaming. It's also true, and it's not particularly mean. It's a statement of fact.

I think that one can use shaming language that doesn't descend into the meanness of name-calling that is at least effective at helping those people realize that their views are terrible and they shouldn't share them for fear of being called out as a person with bad views at the least (or an actual bad person).

It might not cure the racism of people who, say, Tweet pictures of Harambe to Leslie Jones, but it might be enough to convince them not to do it in the first place since they don't want the negatives of being publicly shamed.

I also think that it's important to consider what sort of behavior deserves shaming and what sort of behavior deserves a polite discussion because there is obviously a difference there. Tweeting an insensitive joke to no one in particular that you just think is funny is much different than supporting a racist for president who actively wants to enforce laws that make lives worse, including mine. So I do think that people who believe that shaming has use have a vested interest in shaming the shamers that just do so because they like being mean on the internet.

 

[pigeon]

I did actually.

The only post I've seen is a question on the money paid to Iran this morning and we had a discussion.

I see that you talked to him about how he was wrong about the Iran deal. Didn't really seem to lead into how he was wrong on white nationalism!

 

[The Technomancer]

TBQF I don't think shaming works online for the reasons outlined above: its impossible to feel like a "minority" when you're able to find a vocal community to agree with you on anything. Its only really effective in real life where its possible to actually be socially outnumbered

 

[pigeon]

I also do want to point out that the mean, extreme behavior I am apparently engaging in is pointing out that Trump is a white nationalist, which I really think is just factual. Aside from that I think my posts to Trump supporters are actually less prone to contain gibes, because this isn't fun and games and pointing out that people are incorrectly accusing others of logical fallacies, this is about whether racism should take over America.

Ask Kristoffer whether my posts to Barack Lesnar are mean!

Spoiler

you can't he's banned lol

 

[Cybit]

This argument is about 9 months too late because that's when this thread got taken over by a bunch of hardline Hillary supporters who spent that period giving shit to every Bernie Sanders supporter that wandered by. That would have been a good opportunity to worry about us becoming an echo chamber, but those days are done.

The position of "we should be relentlessly aggressive towards Sanders supporters but we have to be nice to people voting for the Nazi" seems absolutely deranged to me, and yet that seems to be the position of a bunch of people in this thread. Rethink this.

The point is that America was explicitly built, when founded, to give rich whites the right to enslave people because of their race, and people fought a civil war to try to protect that right when they felt it was in danger, so it doesn't require much effort to understand why there are Americans today who are racists. This stuff is deep in American blood and it's frankly frustrating to see people pretend that racism was just invented when we started losing manufacturing jobs. Get real.

Thing is though, slavery was alive and well in Europe during that time period. They didn't need to come to the US in order to enslave people because of their race - they could do that just fine in Europe. The US was built on the back of slaves no doubt; but it was not founded because people needed a place to enslave folks due to their race. The rest of the world was quite OK with slavery at that point as well. There's a difference between a symptom and a cause; and I think that argument about the US is confusing the two.

But yes, anyone saying racism was just invented when we started losing manufacturing jobs is pretty full of it. Though I believe Trump did not "enable" racism back into political discourse - I think he ripped the bandage off of an issue that had been simmering (because of said shaming and how it was being done). I wonder if this will end up being a net benefit in the long run because it might force us to actually have this conversation rather than just hushing it into silence and into more resentment.

A while ago back in another chat you mentioned that you expected Hillary to come out of the primary and immediately start moving away from her racial justice campaigning towards positions that would be more effective at siphoning white support from Trump. I disagreed with you at the time but clearly you were right. That's all I was referencing when I assigned that to you

Ahh, kk.

This conversation is really disappointing to me because it shows that Trump has already succeeded. The crazy racists at the RNC are right -- they have successfully normalized overt racism in the political discourse. It's okay to be a white nationalist in America again. Progressives will sit down at the table with you and try to find common ground. I am deeply disheartened. It took one year to go from 2015 to 1964.

Which is a gross oversimplification I think. I think it's sort of unfair and demeaning to those who grew up in the 60s and went through the state sponsored racism to try to compare 2016 to even remotely that level of racism. Even POTUS and Holder and John Lewis and Jesse Jackson and others have noted, that while progress is hard and still needs to be made, that the modern era is not comparable to that era. I think you can have discussions about modern racism without having to resort to trying to compare to the intensity of racism back then.

The thing about shaming is that if 2016 is any indication, all that shaming the last 8 years appear to have had the opposite effect. I think our newfound ability to move ourselves and communicate with anyone we want has fundamentally altered how some of these things worse. Societal shaming works when you can't find like minded fellows to build a community around unless you stop the action that is causing the shaming. With the advent of the internet, and the ability to move ourselves anywhere around the country (and congregate amongst like minded people) - I think that isn't possible any more.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

It is an error of analysis to assume that successful things were the product of skill, or that failed things were the product of failure. In fact, quite a lot of what occurs is essentially random. This is the entire premise of, for example, the book The Black Swan.

Trump was no doubt suave and learned from his birther experience that there is a vein of white anger ripe for tapping, and that you can often get free press--there are things about his campaign that are lessons for sure--but it's quite possible it could have went the other way even with nothing structurally being different and if Trump had not won the nomination we'd essentially have discarded any lessons from his candidacy.

Am I being fooled by a random event or is Trump's ability being erroneously discounted because of various biases? I don't know. Nassim Taleb (if you're referring to his book) has commented on Trump occasionally. I don't think this would qualify as a black swan case.

I also think, like many people, you are projecting your support (I am assuming unironic at this point) of the candidate into an objective measure of their competency. The same occurs by voters who support any party (see the fact that even in landslide elections, a majority of each party's supporters believe and answer polls saying they are going to win or are the best candidates for the job or other objective things, separate from subjective attachment to the candidate).

Finally I would say borrowing Trump's dumb names for other people is, like, extremely unattractive in terms of what it says about your propensity to repeat uncritically what you hear. Lyin' Ted is a nonsense nickname, that six months after the fact no one even remembers what it's about. I find Cruz extremely odious, he's an embarrassment to his birth country, Canada. But he's not notably dishonest and the things he was being accused of at the time struck me as plainly overblown. Trump just throws insults, there's not really any connection between the nature of the insult and the person he's insulting. Saying Lyin' Ted uncritically is about 90% as dumb as liberals saying Drumpf. You, like most people, have the capacity to actually engage your brain so why opt not to use it?

I don't understand why you feel Lyin' Ted is a dumb name or nonsense? He doesn't have to be notably dishonest (although he lies quite a bit) for it to be a thing that sticks with folks and correspondingly effective. It definitely stuck with me. And I didn't do an objective/rigorous comparison of skill vs. something else. Vast majority of what I've said is subjective and wasn't measured in a serious way.

 

[Gotchaye]

If people are being racist/sexist/etc. or supporting someone for the highest office in the land who is obviously racist/sexist/etc. and you aren't allowed to call them out on that, how do you even talk to said people? Do you just not interact with them and let them stew in awfulness? Like you don't have to call them a piece of shit to their faces to start with but........these are objectively odious positions. Like you can try to intellectually explain why they are wrong but there is only so much you can do in that regard, so much patience you can exert, etc. They deserved to be pushed back against, criticized and called out.

To be clear, I don't think that characterizing Trump or support for Trump as racist is in itself "mean", although of course you could have a discussion about whether that's the most useful way to express the idea etc., etc. I think that's a clearly legitimate perspective on Trump and Trump support - I basically agree with it - but at some point it's been said enough in response to someone who did not intend to be gross that it's clearly just punitive rather than rehabilitative. Or it's used in a dismissive way that isn't just "I don't care to respond to this in detail" but "you shouldn't get a response in detail". And like I've said I think it's pretty plausible that when you can present overwhelming social pressure against the racist attitude then it's actually useful to do so. But the general way that an opinion that someone is being racist can be expressed meanly - justifiably or not - is going to look a lot like the way any other difference of opinion can be expressed meanly, although it's of course a lot more understandable why someone might get angry and mean when confronted with racism.

I'm not really saying it's wrong to go verbally abuse Trump supporters in the comments of Yahoo! News articles. If that's what's fun for you then knock yourself out. But it's mean, and I don't think it's useful, and I don't think it's very interesting, and so there's definitely a line someone could cross in calling out a Trump supporter on gaf that would get me to ban them.

 

[StormBrute]

I have to say I'm on pigeon's side with this.

I mean, fuck, the window for acceptable discussion on popular websites as a whole has moved so much, I feel. Look at the stuff on Reddit and Twitter that's just so racist, sexist, and hateful, and it's just like, okay, that exists in the open now. People are exposed to that now, emboldened by it, think it's okay. Young people too. (Maybe not here specifically, but in general)

I think it's good to show that is shameful and not deserving of respect like any other position.

Trump isn't some coherent, reasonable politician with actual policies. He's a white nationalist and that's it. That is all that he is. I'm not going to argue about his merit and how he's actually a good candidate worthy of support, though I will argue about his specific non-hate policies (that few that exist). Similarly, I'm not gonna debate a Neo-Nazi or a Klansmen on supporting vile pieces of shit, but I will argue what they think about economics.

If someone thinks Trump has a better economic plan, fine, I'll argue that. But if you actually support Trump as a whole, taking everything he stands for, then I'm not gonna give you the dignity that you're denying all the people Trump would hurt.

 

[B-Dubs]

Diamond Joe keeps winning.

(((Scott Smith))) ‏@ourmaninchicago 3h3 hours ago

Biden with some lead-by-example advice for bosses everywhere.
(From this month's @esquire)

I missed this earlier, but damn. Really gonna miss that man.

 

[Grief.exe]

I see that you talked to him about how he was wrong about the Iran deal. Didn't really seem to lead into how he was wrong on white nationalism!

One step at a time.
Rome wasn't built in a day.
Other encouraging lines.

 

[sazzy]

Theres no way this is real right?

http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1470425192316.png

 

[whyamihere]

In non-Trump related news, Hillary is pulling the trigger and opening two field offices in Arizona.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ng-arizona-campaign-offices-fanfare/88306120/

 

[VRMN]

Theres no way this is real right?

http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1470425192316.png

It's 4chan.

 

[minor effort]

https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/761713195702595584

@DrJillStein

Very excited - Julian Assange of @wikileaks will be speaking at the #GreenConvention about the #DNCLeaks! http://m.chron.com/houston/article/Julian-Assange-to-speak-via-live-feed-at-Green-9125376.php … #GNCinHOU

Oh, you !

 

[Grief.exe]

Theres no way this is real right?

http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1470425192316.png

The Merkel part pretty much kills it dead.

 

[sazzy]

It's 4chan.

Good...

What purpose does it serve for people to come up with some elaborate fantasy and actually share them with other people? Are they hoping for a fairy god mother to intervene or something...

 

[sc0la]

Trump "My African Americans love me!" (Polls Show They Don't)

Trump: "Santa Claus has said I will make the best President. It's true!" (Santa Claus Does Not Exist)

Trump: "I endorse... *reads paper* Paul Rayo.. Ryan, is that how you pronounce it? Anyway I endorse him in his primary; on Wednesday I think it is? Ok" (Mostly True)

 

[shinra-bansho]

Maybe this has been posted already and I missed it.

But if not, I'm surprised poligay.

Spoiler

This is Hill and Bill's nephew.

His name is.

Tyler.

 

[B-Dubs]

Theres no way this is real right?

http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1470425192316.png

Yes, Huma Abedin, who probably is the one person in the world closer to Hillary than Bill, who has been with her for decades, has leaked personal videos of Hillary Clinton that make her look bad. That's totally something that happened.

 

[Sibylus]

I have to say I'm on pigeon's side with this.

I mean, fuck, the window for acceptable discussion on popular websites as a whole has moved so much, I feel. Look at the stuff on Reddit and Twitter that's just so racist, sexist, and hateful, and it's just like, okay, that exists in the open now. People are exposed to that now, emboldened by it, think it's okay. Young people too. (Maybe not here specifically, but in general)

I think it's good to show that is shameful and not deserving of respect like any other position.

Trump isn't some coherent, reasonable politician with actual policies. He's a white nationalist and that's it. That is all that he is. I'm not going to argue about his merit and how he's actually a good candidate worthy of support, though I will argue about his specific non-hate policies (that few that exist). Similarly, I'm not gonna debate a Neo-Nazi or a Klansmen on supporting vile pieces of shit, but I will argue what they think about economics.

If someone thinks Trump has a better economic plan, fine, I'll argue that. But if you actually support Trump as a whole, taking everything he stands for, then I'm not gonna give you the dignity that you're denying all the people Trump would hurt.

I'm with you two. Why the fuck is there any devil's advocacy for the candidate that espouses an American brand of fascism and white nationalism? He's not a serious political alternative. He's an existential threat to democracy and the security of billions of people. How the fuck does anything else he has to say matter? Am I taking crazy pills??

 

[Balphon]

Yes, Huma Abedin, who probably is the one person in the world closer to Hillary than Bill, who has been with her for decades, has leaked personal videos of Hillary Clinton that make her look bad. That's totally something that happened.

She's been a mole for the House of Saud this whole time! That's how deep the rabbit hole goes!

#followthemoney

 

[VRMN]

Good...

What purpose does it serve for people to come up with some elaborate fantasy and actually share them with other people? Are they hoping for a fairy god mother to intervene or something...

It's 4chan. The one place on the internet more toxic and full of trolls than r/TheDonald.

 

[Teggy]

https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/761713195702595584



Oh, you !

I thought Assange was limited in where he can go because of warrants for rape.

 

[Tubie]

Yes, Huma Abedin, who probably is the one person in the world closer to Hillary than Bill, who has been with her for decades, has leaked personal videos of Hillary Clinton that make her look bad. That's totally something that happened.

Gary would never do that to Selina.

 

[Rebel Leader]

I thought Assange was limited in where he can go because of warrants for rape.

Facetime?

 

[mo60]

I thought Assange was limited in where he can go because of warrants for rape.

He's speaking via a live feed.

 

[minor effort]

I thought Assange was limited in where he can go because of warrants for rape.

It's via video.

 

[ampere]

I thought Assange was limited in where he can go because of warrants for rape.

Facetime?

He does video interviews all the time

Unfortunately

 

[Retro]

Watching Trump endorse Ryan / McCain / Ayotte was like watching a middle school kid give a class report, desperate attempt not to have a boner included. Given in a very monotone and stammering manner, eyes glued to the paper, breaking momentarily to feign eye contact. When you take out the bombast, Trump has all the oratory skill of a white noise machine (pun definitely intended).

Also, with McCain's opponent running ads to tie him to Trump, this endorsement doesn't seem like it can possibly help. Trumpers are out for establishment blood and I don't see Trump making a limp endorsement changing that (especially after hammering so negatively for so long).

Plus, you know, next week he'll throw the cards away and start denigrating all three of them again.

 

[Teggy]

Facetime?

He's speaking via a live feed.

It's via video.

He does video interviews all the time

Unfortunately

Ah

 

[campfireweekend]

I'm with you two. Why the fuck is there any devil's advocacy for the candidate that espouses an American brand of fascism and white nationalism? He's not a serious political alternative. He's an existential threat to democracy and the security of billions of people. How the fuck does anything else he has to say matter? Am I taking crazy pills??

I've had this exact discussion with a friend irl, and he had the same concerns, like man "maybe we're the close-minded ones because we don't hear them out and immediately call them racists. 40% of the population cant be racist!" and it's maddening.

Yes they fucking can. They should be shut down. There is no substantive discourse to be found. We're not gonna learn anything, or change any hearts and minds at this point if Trump's own words and actions havent managed to do that.

I've talked to Real life trump supporters, without insulting them, respectfully engaging each of their points. The best you get is them thinking you're a decent person, lamenting "why can't people in Washington talk like we just did, without shutting each other down." But guess what? They didn't change their mind. They still had a feeling trump was better for America.

You treat them respectfully, they'll think their views are respectable. We're not talking about mccain or Romney supporters. As trumps slips into the low 30s, all thats left are legitimate white nationalists.

I don't give a single fuck if any Trump supporter thinks I'm a decent person, or that I didnt treat their views with respect. The best we can hope for is to shame them into not voting, or not making statements that make a lot of minorities in our country legitimately fear for their futures. That's a victory.

 

[DrForester]

 

[Tubie]

Wonder how long before Trump goes off the rails again.

I imagine he will have something to say about the global warming bit.

 

[hawk2025]

https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/761713195702595584



Oh, you !

Her opportunism knows no bounds.

What a gross person.

 

[Trouble]

Wonder how long before Trump goes off the rails again.

What the longest 'Presidential Trump' has lasted so far? I feel like it's less than 48 hours.

 

[Paskil]

Shinra, I would almost say that it is grossly negligent to post images like that with these thirsty motherfuckers up in here.

 

[Mighty Chin]

That was funny watching Santorum trying not to laugh at that Anne Frank joke.

 

[sc0la]

Shinra, I would almost say that it is grossly negligent to post images like that with these thirsty motherfuckers up in here.

lmao

Also I browse on mobile so much I didn't know you could spoiler tag images like that.

 

[jevity]

I have question for all of you.
Being a Dane, with a lot of close family in the U.S, I feel invested in your general election, in a way many of my countrymen do not.

My question is this:

Why it is of such great importance to the republicans, whether it was a YouTube video or a non-videorelated violent protest, that resulted in the Benghazi outpost assault?

 

[The Technomancer]

I have question for all of you.
Being a Dane, with a lot of close family in the U.S, I feel invested in your general election, in a way many of my countrymen do not.

My question is this:

Why it is of such great importance to the republicans, whether it was a YouTube video or a non-videorelated violent protest, that resulted in the Benghazi outpost assault?

Because it was a vector to attack Hillary

No really

that's it

If you don't live here you can't quite realize just how much they've hated her for decades