Reuters Data Dive: The emotional cost of the 2016 election - Polidicks

[QUOTE=bunguer;51794146]Can I also point that off-hand comment to Sanders who actually said the same thing about people focusing too much on identity politics? ([url=http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/bernie-sanders-democrats-identity-politics-231710]Sanders slams identity politics as Democrats figure out their future) [/url] "Bernie Sanders said Monday that the path to success for Democrats has to be through more than just identity politics, adding that it’s simply not enough for the party to base its appeals on diversity." Do you also think Sanders and other academic critics of identity politics spend too much time on Tumblr?[/QUOTE] Thanks for that article, I honestly don't know how deep the focus on diversity went in Clinton's campaign, and I absolutely agree that it shouldn't be the main focus, and that Clinton played the woman-card far too often. But I don't think stating that the Democrat platform focused too much on diversity is the same as saying that the left is running around generalizing Republicans as homophobes. My point that zealous 'SJWs' are a minority group still stands. Otherwise I agree, and I hope it's no surprise to you that most people here already agree that Clinton's campaign was shite as well.

Sanders was by far more supportive of "identity politics" than Clinton by the way. His overall statement was that it's not the only thing that matters.

-snip-

honestly I've ended up unfollowing a few of my hardcore liberal friends on facebook. when you start advocating for actual violence, laughing about children getting attacked (the middle schooler that got punched for wearing a trump hat), saying that "it's not a conversation" when others bring points up against your argument, I tend to draw a line about what I want to see from you.

[QUOTE=bunguer;51794075]I find it laughable to see so many types of comments like this, it's not like repeating this insanity makes it more truthful. I have been on FP for many years, yet I rarely see any post that can be deemed homophobic, racist or sexist. In fact, the few times it happens, a lot of people are quick to call them off, people from all sides of the political spectrum. I understand and know that people like that do exist, especially outside of FP. Nonetheless, in what can only be described as a very hypocritical action, many of the righteous enjoy spouting this type of comment and generalize an entire group of people because of the actions of the few. Does an Hillary supporter shares all the viewpoints of her platform? I sure as hope not. Redirect your anger to Trump and the specific policies you do not agree with, protest them on the streets and demand better candidates from the DNC. Politics are not just identity politics, which seems to be all what people enjoy debating lately. Find better candidates and people will support them, there's a reason Trump got the least amount of approval rating. People who voted for him might also disagree with many of his decisions. Lastly, stop thinking all the decisions and personal beliefs can be encompassed through a vote in one of the worst election cycles ever.[/QUOTE] People are arguing in the first place because of posts saying leftists are intolerant (which in and of itself is a generalization) because some of them cut ties with friends or family as a result of the recent political hubbub. Nowhere does it say that those people cut ties with others because those simply supported Trump, they cut ties because of their social or political convictions, which as we saw in the personal examples people brought up can include hardcore racism, sexism, homophobia and general bigotry. Now how the fuck is cutting ties with people because of their hateful behavior intolerant? And why are we insane for suggesting the opposite? [editline]8th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51794084]It has nothing to do with deeming anything acceptable. You can deem something unacceptable, but still tolerate it.[/QUOTE] [Quote]Tolerate: Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference.[/quote] So letting racist practices happen without interference is the tolerant thing to do now? Not letting targets of hateful behavior suffer from bigotry is intolerant? Wouldn't inaction be intolerant towards those targets? Or are you suggesting you can't technically be intolerant towards those as a liberal because you agree with their existence? Does that mean I can technically be tolerant towards bigots if I make their lives miserable but claim I agree with their point of view? You're stretching the definition of the word to the point where it doesn't mean anything anymore, this is fucking stupid.

-snip-

[QUOTE=bunguer;51794514]Did you notice you are arguing and refuting a point no one did?[/QUOTE] Literally the first post in the thread: [QUOTE=nVidia;51790836]So much for that much preached tolerance, wow.[/QUOTE] Which is what started the whole argument to begin with.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51793877]I've often wondered why I didn't unfriend my anti Trump facebook friends, given that they supported a candidate you would have started [B]literal nuclear war[/B]. They were basically supporting a candidate whose policies would have [B]literally resulted in my death, as well as their own....[/B] ...I'm not upset that Clinton voters didn't vote with my best interests in mind, I'm upset because they [B]voted against their own best interests[/B]. I can't really see them a malicious or immoral because of that.[/QUOTE] What if nuclear holocaust is my best interest? [QUOTE=bunguer;51793576] I hate to post a PragerU but this one is made by Dave Rubin which should be a known name for all the leftists. [/QUOTE] I disagree with Rubin. Am I intolerant now. [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51793975]Well, maybe the left should start actually tolerating things they disagree with or stop calling themselves tolerant.[/QUOTE] I love how the undertones of the whole "SO much for the """tolerant left""" amirite guys :smug:" isn't that the right is tolerant, it's just that members of the left are as intolerant as the right. Maybe when the right in America excises the bizarre tumor that represents Christian fundamentalism you guys can be considered tolerant as well. Until then, don't equivocate removing someone from Facebook because of their Trump spam with legally codifying intolerant laws. [editline]8th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=bunguer;51794514] The original argument was that you shouldn't cut ties with someone [b]merely[/b] for voting a different party - [i]the arguments for doing so seem to stand on the accusation of any Trump voter being racist, homophobic and bigots[/i] - something that I find wrong and against progressive ideals. [/QUOTE] I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you don't consider yourself a progressive.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51794307]So letting racist practices happen without interference is the tolerant thing to do now? Not letting targets of hateful behavior suffer from bigotry is intolerant? Wouldn't inaction be intolerant towards those targets? Or are you suggesting you can't technically be intolerant towards those as a liberal because you agree with their existence? Does that mean I can technically be tolerant towards bigots if I make their lives miserable but claim I agree with their point of view? You're stretching the definition of the word to the point where it doesn't mean anything anymore, this is fucking stupid.[/QUOTE] I'm not stretching anything. You are the one stretching the word to try and make it fit with what you want it to mean. Tolerance has a definition. You either are tolerant or you aren't. The only problem is that some people like to pretend to be tolerant of others without actually having to be tolerant of anything they really don't like, which means they in fact aren't tolerant at all.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51793877]I've often wondered why I didn't unfriend my anti Trump facebook friends, given that they supported a candidate you would have started [B]literal nuclear war[/B]. They were basically supporting a candidate whose policies would have [B]literally resulted in my death, as well as their own.[/B] I guess the difference between myself and the anti-Trump people is I believe a vote for Clinton was a vote cast on ignorance, whereas the other side sees a vote for Trump as being based on malice. A big complaint about Trump voters is they failed to take into account the interests of minorities, LGBT, women etc... before casting their votes. As such a Trump voter either didn't give a shit about, or was actively hostile to those groups. The problem is it's unreasonable to expect anyone to vote with another groups interests taking priority over their own, it's just human nature. Being morally indignant is pointless because you can't expect anyone who is not gay, for example, to pause and ask themselves "but what will this mean for gay couples?" before they tick the box. I'm not upset that Clinton voters didn't vote with my best interests in mind, I'm upset because they [B]voted against their own best interests[/B]. I can't really see them a malicious or immoral because of that.[/QUOTE] Another declaration about how Crooked Clinton would make the world end in nuclear hellfire, I guess world war 3 wasn't enough to blame her so we had to upgrade to mass nuclear strikes. Everybody knew that Clinton was no good as a candidate, but the DNC thought it would be a good idea to pick her because woman and because Bernie was an outsider. Anybody else would have beat the orange idiot hollow. And tell me something more about Clinton voters voting against their best interests when Trump demolished fucking everything that prevented big business from raping and looting the country, without adhering to any norms whatsoever. I guess the supporters of Trump wont mind one bit when they find sawdust in their sausage and a dead rat in their box of cornflakes.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51794639]I'm not stretching anything. You are the one stretching the word to try and make it fit with what you want it to mean. Tolerance has a definition. You either are tolerant or you aren't. The only problem is that some people like to pretend to be tolerant of others without actually having to be tolerant of anything they really don't like, which means they in fact aren't tolerant at all.[/QUOTE] Good job addressing none of my points. Your brainless applying of the definition to the extreme is what empties the word of all its meaning. According to you, anybody who goes against the hurtful behavior of other people is intolerant. You might as well say that liberals are intolerant because they don't tolerate rape and murder, it makes as much sense as your assertion. When progressive people (and, y'know, numerous religions and philosophies) preach tolerance, it means tolerance towards people and behaviors [I]that don't infringe on other people's dignity and rights.[/I] Anything more would be preaching for people to be passive, submissive slugs. Racism and other forms of bigotry, surprisingly, don't fall into that category. Now if you could stop trying to do sick zingers out of meaningless semantics, please?

[QUOTE=CanUBe;51790909]It's almost as if Trump supporters tend to have more extreme, alienating views. Also if you support an intolerant candidate don't expect any tolerance from the people he's going to fuck over.[/QUOTE] Extreme is often relative. Civic nationalism and economic protectionism was the norm for much of US history. It wasn't until globalization that acting in your own interests by embracing the two and therefore favoring anything short of an open society was called 'xenophobic'. We virtue signal to the particular demise of native working class people while benefiting the wealthy, who this time around backed the democratic candidate. They felt left behind by globalization and thought the emphasis of the urban, upper class liberal on multiculturalism and identity politics was completely out of touch. There's a reversed class warfare aspect to left vs right nowadays Also, 'intolerant of intolerance'. Just be real with yourself that liberals are not for negative liberties and live in a regional, academic, and intellectual bubble that they prefer to maintain, and categorically dismiss all opposition as bigotry of flyover states.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51794802]Good job addressing none of my points. Your brainless applying of the definition to the extreme is what empties the word of all its meaning. According to you, anybody who goes against the hurtful behavior of other people is intolerant. You might as well say that liberals are intolerant because they don't tolerate rape and murder, it makes as much sense as your assertion. When progressive people (and, y'know, numerous religions and philosophies) preach tolerance, it means tolerance towards people and behaviors [I]that don't infringe on other people's dignity and rights.[/I] Anything more would be preaching for people to be passive, submissive slugs. Racism and other forms of bigotry, surprisingly, don't fall into that category. Now if you could stop trying to do sick zingers out of meaningless semantics, please?[/QUOTE] There is a difference between intolerance of harmful actions like rape and murder, and tolerance of others opinions. The two are not one and the same. Your use of as absurdum doesn't change that people claiming to be tolerant of others, who aren't tolerant of views they don't like, weren't tolerant to begin with.

[QUOTE=Conscript;51794812]Extreme is often relative. Civic nationalism and economic protectionism was the norm for much of US history. It wasn't until globalization that acting in your own interests by embracing the two and therefore favoring anything short of an open society was called 'xenophobic'. We virtue signal to the particular demise of native working class people while benefiting the wealthy, who this time around backed the democratic candidate. They felt left behind by globalization and thought the emphasis of the urban, upper class liberal on multiculturalism and identity politics was completely out of touch. There's a reversed class warfare aspect to left vs right nowadays [/QUOTE] Who is "we"? [QUOTE=Conscript;51794812] Also, 'intolerant of intolerance'. Just be real with yourself that liberals are not for negative liberties and live in a regional, academic, and intellectual bubble that they prefer to maintain, and categorically dismiss all opposition as bigotry of flyover states.[/QUOTE] Do you not do the same thing regarding the "urban, upper class liberal" left? And if not you, definitely others who have made everything short of outright proclamations that east coast/west coast urban populations that overwhelmingly voted Clinton weren't "real" Americans. I'd argue that many of the reasons for the Right's reinvigorated support for the electoral college is to try and limit the power of the urban left.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51794860]There is a difference between intolerance of harmful actions like rape and murder, and tolerance of others opinions. The two are not one and the same. Your use of as absurdum doesn't change that people claiming to be tolerant of others, who aren't tolerant of views they don't like, weren't tolerant to begin with.[/QUOTE] Other's opinions can be harmful too, it is the case of bigoted opinions. Like harmful actions, they can infringe on the rights and dignity of others. If you aren't tolerant of views that put other people's rights in jeopardy, you aren't intolerant. Otherwise tolerant would simply mean submissive.

[QUOTE=Conscript;51794812]Extreme is often relative. Civic nationalism and economic protectionism was the norm for much of US history. It wasn't until globalization that acting in your own interests by embracing the two and therefore favoring anything short of an open society was called 'xenophobic'. We virtue signal to the particular demise of native working class people while benefiting the wealthy, who this time around backed the democratic candidate. They felt left behind by globalization and thought the emphasis of the urban, upper class liberal on multiculturalism and identity politics was completely out of touch. There's a reversed class warfare aspect to left vs right nowadays Also, 'intolerant of intolerance'. Just be real with yourself that liberals are not for negative liberties and live in a regional, academic, and intellectual bubble that they prefer to maintain, and categorically dismiss all opposition as bigotry of flyover states.[/QUOTE] Quite nice conflations you have going on. Economic protectionism is NOT acting in our own interests. Free trade creates greater prosperity due to specialization and comparative advantage. Of course, in the act of specialization some people lose out much like people did when agriculture stopped employing 40% of Americans. Frustrated that the free market doesn't make literally everybody into a winner? Join social democracy who want to reallocate some of the surplus to help those who lost out. You also aren't remotely shat on for wanting anything less than an entirely open society. Obama deported over 2 million illegal immigrants during his term and it isn't remotely a part of either party's platform to have a totally open society. What you are shat on is for retreating into ignorance-fueled xenophobia. What you're doing is defending people trapped within ideology. They've identified some real problems of being left out and then attached themselves to comforting myths. Americans are some of the least militant people when it comes to improving the conditions for our working class, and this is why and it's apparent by merely comparing labor/welfare laws between European countries and America.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51793877]I've often wondered why I didn't unfriend my anti Trump facebook friends, given that they supported a candidate you would have started [B]literal nuclear war[/B]. They were basically supporting a candidate whose policies would have [B]literally resulted in my death, as well as their own.[/B] I guess the difference between myself and the anti-Trump people is I believe a vote for Clinton was a vote cast on ignorance, whereas the other side sees a vote for Trump as being based on malice. A big complaint about Trump voters is they failed to take into account the interests of minorities, LGBT, women etc... before casting their votes. As such a Trump voter either didn't give a shit about, or was actively hostile to those groups. The problem is it's unreasonable to expect anyone to vote with another groups interests taking priority over their own, it's just human nature. Being morally indignant is pointless because you can't expect anyone who is not gay, for example, to pause and ask themselves "but what will this mean for gay couples?" before they tick the box. I'm not upset that Clinton voters didn't vote with my best interests in mind, I'm upset because they [B]voted against their own best interests[/B]. I can't really see them a malicious or immoral because of that.[/QUOTE] You need to realize how wildly ignorant you are to assume trump has your back

[QUOTE=_Axel;51794888]Other's opinions can be harmful too, it is the case of bigoted opinions. Like harmful actions, they can infringe on the rights and dignity of others. If you aren't tolerant of views that put other people's rights in jeopardy, you aren't intolerant. Otherwise tolerant would simply mean submissive.[/QUOTE] Right, because a 78 year old man having the opinion that blacks are lazy infringes on what right exactly?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51794928]Right, because a 78 year old man having the opinion that blacks are lazy infringes on what right exactly?[/QUOTE] It's their actions that can be opposed as well as the effects of spreading said belief about a group.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51794943]It's their actions that can be opposed as well as the effects of spreading said belief about a group.[/QUOTE] I haven't stated an action. I've stated a person with an opinion. What rights does that infringe on exactly?

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51793877]I've often wondered why I didn't unfriend my anti Trump facebook friends, given that they supported a candidate you would have started [B]literal nuclear war[/B]. They were basically supporting a candidate whose policies would have [B]literally resulted in my death, as well as their own.[/B][/QUOTE] I want to believe you are joking, but I don't think you are. Also is there such a thing as a figurative nuclear war? will it figuratively result in our deaths?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51794967]I haven't stated an action. I've stated a person with an opinion. What rights does that infringe on exactly?[/QUOTE] And I haven't said that infringes anything

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51794967]I haven't stated an action. I've stated a person with an opinion. What rights does that infringe on exactly?[/QUOTE] Opinions almost always transpire into acts, and even when they don't, they make those who engage in bigoted acts feel justified in their actions because the opinion that motivated them is shared by others. Just like the belief that vaccines cause autism is harmful because it spreads to people who don't know any better and thus suffer the consequences. Are you seriously trying to argue that people being racist has no impact on those that racism is targeted towards?

I'm actually worried about this too, since my girlfriend and I really get along and we love each other, but we couldn't have more opposite and divisive opinions on Trump and policies. I've already cut contact with some friends before because they couldn't stop posting racist, xenophobic /pol/ memes and talking with them just became arguing every time. [QUOTE=Nitro836;51793779]Christ, politics REALLY divides people.[/QUOTE] Politics has never been [i]this[/i] divisive before. Trump has extremely polarized people with his extreme rhetoric.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51795002]Opinions almost always transpire into acts, and even when they don't, they make those who engage in bigoted acts feel justified in their actions because the opinion that motivated them is shared by others. Just like the belief that vaccines cause autism is harmful because it spreads to people who don't know any better and thus suffer the consequences. Are you seriously trying to argue that people being racist has no impact on those that racism is targeted towards?[/QUOTE] No, I'm asking what rights does holding an opinion infringe upon. You haven't answered that question yet.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51795146]No, I'm asking what rights does holding an opinion infringe upon. You haven't answered that question yet.[/QUOTE] I just did. Holding racist opinions makes the group that holds these opinions more likely to be emboldened and commit racist acts. They also influence the behavior of whoever holds these opinions, whether you believe it or not. Thus holding racist opinions infringe on the dignity and well-being of those that racism is targeted towards. Hence why cutting ties (of [I]all fucking things[/I]) with people who hold these views isn't intolerant. Your point is fucking ridiculous. [editline]8th February 2017[/editline] Not to mention that spouting racist shit towards people does infringe upon their dignity. Your claim that [I]not being friends[/I] with this kind of asswipe makes you intolerant is nothing short of absurd. [editline]8th February 2017[/editline] This whole bullshit we're discussing isn't even relevant because being tolerant of someone doesn't even imply being friends with them. Your whole premise of "people cutting ties with them because they are racist are intolerant" doesn't even stand up on its own. People who don't accept racist behavior and actively campaign against it are justified in doing so, but those who simply cut ties with those who engage in such behavior don't even go against the perpetuation of such behavior. Your own definition of intolerance doesn't even apply to them.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51795215]I just did. Holding racist opinions makes the group that holds these opinions more likely to be emboldened and commit racist acts. They also influence the behavior of whoever holds these opinions, whether you believe it or not. Thus holding racist opinions infringe on the dignity and well-being of those that racism is targeted towards. Hence why cutting ties (of [I]all fucking things[/I]) with people who hold these views isn't intolerant. Your point is fucking ridiculous. [editline]8th February 2017[/editline] Not to mention that spouting racist shit towards people does infringe upon their dignity. Your claim that [I]not being friends[/I] with this kind of asswipe makes you intolerant is nothing short of absurd.[/QUOTE] No you didn't. There is no right that purely holding an opinion infringes upon. You have to jump through hoops and extrapolate it to an action even come close to an inkling of a reason, when we're not talking about actions. We're talking about an opinion. And let's not pretend here that people who are "intolerant of intolerance" are only being intolerant against actual bigots, instead of labeling everything they disagree with as some form of bigotry just to have an excuse to be "intolerant" while still keeping up appearances. [editline]8th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;51795215]This whole bullshit we're discussing isn't even relevant because being tolerant of someone doesn't even imply being friends with them. Your whole premise of "people cutting ties with them because they are racist are intolerant" doesn't even stand up on its own. People who don't accept racist behavior and actively campaign against it are justified in doing so, but those who simply cut ties with those who engage in such behavior don't even go against the perpetuation of such behavior. Your own definition of intolerance doesn't even apply to them.[/QUOTE] I never said anything about not being friends with people who are bigots. I don't even do that. I don't know where this came from, but that's not my argument here whatsoever.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51795345]No you didn't. There is no right that purely holding an opinion infringes upon. You have to jump through hoops and extrapolate it to an action even come close to an inkling of a reason, when we're not talking about actions. We're talking about an opinion.[/QUOTE] What do you mean "purely holding an opinion"? Thinking something but not have it influence your behavior whatsoever nor share your thoughts about it? If so then no fucking shit "holding an opinion" the way it seems you're defining it doesn't infringe upon anything. But opinions never really stay in the realm of the thought, and when they start having influence upon reality these opinions have consequences. [QUOTE]And let's not pretend here that people who are "intolerant of intolerance" are only being intolerant against actual bigots, instead of labeling everything they disagree with as some form of bigotry just to have an excuse to be "intolerant" while still keeping up appearances.[/QUOTE] I never brought up anything about this? Our discussion is solely restricted to actual bigots. [QUOTE]I never said anything about not being friends with people who are bigots. I don't even do that. I don't know where this came from, but that's not my argument here whatsoever.[/QUOTE] You responded to this post: [QUOTE=ImUnstoppable;51793938]So much for """""tolerant"""" left amirite guys? Maybe if I repeat that enough people will stop hating me for being a racist, homophobe and such![/QUOTE] Which was referring to all the other posters who tried to accuse liberals cutting ties with bigots of being hypocrites who are actually intolerant by doing so. You responded by saying: [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51793975]Well, maybe the left should start actually tolerating things they disagree with or stop calling themselves tolerant.[/QUOTE] Which if taken in the context of what you're responding to implies that those who do that are indeed intolerant. Maybe if you started being more specific instead of generalizing and broadly accusing the nebulous group that is "the left" it would prevent such confusion from happening.