1756: "I'm With Her"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4875
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Nov 10, 2016 5:28 pm UTC

Karantalsis wrote:From my perspective (a left-wing European) it appears that many Americans want the freedom to impinge on the rights of others. To me that doesn't appear to be freedom as it restricts one, or, usually, more people to increase the benefit to another, so is, in fact, a reduction in freedom. If everyone has the right to exploit each other in such a way as to restrict access to transport, say, but only a minority have the means to do that, then they restrict the rights of the majority. If that right to restrict access to transport is abrogated by a governmental authority that is an increase, not a decrease, in rights and freedoms.

The general principle you're describing sounds about right to me, and while some Americans do think otherwise (e.g. Christian conservatives who think laws keeping them from imposing their religion on others infringe their "religions freedom"), I think that is still the general notion most Americans think of when they think "freedom". However, the specific example you give makes me think you might be engaging in some kind of doublethink there. AFAIK nobody in America is trying to "restrict access to transport" in the sense of saying "certain classes of people may not make use of certain kinds of transport", e.g. no black people on public busses. I think almost every American (today) would consider that kind of thing an infringement of someone's freedom. Rather, some people are saying "I don't want to have to provide you with transport; use whatever transport you can get your hands on, go right ahead, I won't stop you, but don't ask me to pay for it." I worry that you might be interpreting an unwillingness to help as active hinderance, and so misinterpreting something to be about freedom that's actually about something else entirely. That something else might still be an important matter, but it's not a matter of freedom.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4875
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Nov 10, 2016 5:46 pm UTC

azule wrote:A defense treaty with our neighbour to the north would help.

I kinda don't think Oregon's going to bring much defense to the table, especially if they're still part of the USA themselves. ;)

I think leaving in a peaceful manner could work, like what gets proposed in the U.K. with its countries.

It totally could, if people on both sides wanted it. Peace is easy when everyone wants it. But I'm pretty sure the rest of the USA would not want California to leave, and would make a stink about it the likes of which we haven't seen for, oh... 150 years or so.

I don't know if the rest of the country gets more fascistic. I would hope it evens out without the presence of California as the liberal monkey wrench to blame. Different countries might do red states better.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here. I was saying that a USA minus California would be far less liberal and progressive on the whole; take just this Presidential election, instead of winning by only 9 electoral votes, Trump would have won by 36. There'sdbe two fewer Democratic senators and the number required for a majority would shrink by one putting Dems 3 further from the lead overall, then 41 fewer Democratic representatives (and 12 fewer Republican ones too, but still), and the threshold for majority would shrink by 27 putting Dems 2 further behind there as well, etc.

It sounds like you're saying maybe an independent (e.g.) Republic of Texas wouldn't be as red as the State of Texas is, if all the states broke up. I don't know if that would be the case or not (I can't see why it would be), but it's something completely different from what I was talking about.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1810
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby eran_rathan » Thu Nov 10, 2016 5:56 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
azule wrote:A defense treaty with our neighbour to the north would help.

I kinda don't think Oregon's going to bring much defense to the table, especially if they're still part of the USA themselves. ;)

I think leaving in a peaceful manner could work, like what gets proposed in the U.K. with its countries.

It totally could, if people on both sides wanted it. Peace is easy when everyone wants it. But I'm pretty sure the rest of the USA would not want California to leave, and would make a stink about it the likes of which we haven't seen for, oh... 150 years or so.

I don't know if the rest of the country gets more fascistic. I would hope it evens out without the presence of California as the liberal monkey wrench to blame. Different countries might do red states better.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here. I was saying that a USA minus California would be far less liberal and progressive on the whole; take just this Presidential election, instead of winning by only 9 electoral votes, Trump would have won by 36. There'sdbe two fewer Democratic senators and the number required for a majority would shrink by one putting Dems 3 further from the lead overall, then 41 fewer Democratic representatives (and 12 fewer Republican ones too, but still), and the threshold for majority would shrink by 27 putting Dems 2 further behind there as well, etc.

It sounds like you're saying maybe an independent (e.g.) Republic of Texas wouldn't be as red as the State of Texas is, if all the states broke up. I don't know if that would be the case or not (I can't see why it would be), but it's something completely different from what I was talking about.


New England would jump ship pretty soon after California, along with possibly southern NY and parts of the Mid-Atlantic states.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

cupric
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:29 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby cupric » Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:51 pm UTC

xtifr wrote:The Clinton Foundation has been audited and exonerated.


Have you got a link for that? <-- I promise that's not sarcastic. I tried every phrasing I could think of, but couldn't come up with anything that couldn't be misread as a taunt.

I searched around and can't find anybody else, of any political persuasion, making that claim.

The Clinton Foundation investigated itself, and subsequently amended several year of financial records (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-foundation-tax-forms_us_564ae72be4b08cda348a6239), but I don't see how that qualifies as exonerated.

User avatar
azule
Saved
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:45 pm UTC
Location: The land of the Golden Puppies and Rainbows

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby azule » Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:40 pm UTC

@Pfhorrest, hi. When I said neighbour to the North I was referring to a west coast union, therefore I meant Canada. A bit of a whoopsie since I was supposed to only talk about California only.

If the rest of the country doesn't want us to leave, we'll find that true if we threaten to leave. ;) I didn't think that was true. Like you aren't too far off from saying, bye bye Texas, so I don't see us as too different.

I was talking about the same thing. Whether it's a more liberal Texas or an evened out USA as a whole, I'm not sure if it would happen but I can see it as one possibility, just as others can see it turning more fascist.

Karantalsis wrote:Speaking about Freedom all the time, and particularly with Trump as being a representative thereof, confuses me. I'm not American and as an outsider, your country looks among the least free in general, and with most restricted in rights in particular, in the developed world. Certainly less free than the UK, Germany, Portugal and many other European nations. The more I read of it the more I think the word freedom is being used to mean totally different things.

From my perspective (a left-wing European) it appears that many Americans want the freedom to impinge on the rights of others. To me that doesn't appear to be freedom as it restricts one, or, usually, more people to increase the benefit to another, so is, in fact, a reduction in freedom. If everyone has the right to exploit each other in such a way as to restrict access to transport, say, but only a minority have the means to do that, then they restrict the rights of the majority. If that right to restrict access to transport is abrogated by a governmental authority that is an increase, not a decrease, in rights and freedoms.

I can see how these two definitions of freedom both make sense, but I can only see one that is moral and good of the two. I might be (and am likely to be) misunderstanding your positions, though, as I think the American culture, and as such political mentality, is so far away from the rest of the developed world that it is actively confusing.

Freedom includes the freedom to restrict the freedom of others, no? I agree that we shouldn't do that, but consider a felon having continued access to firearms because we're not to restrict their rights. I don't know your country's situation, especially on gun laws, but you might not realize which rights you already don't have. I'm anti-gun, but I know the ironic nature of banning guns and then giving more freedoms out, such as happens in Canada. I think the issue is much more complex than your statement seems to make it.
Image

If you read this sig, post about one arbitrary thing you did today.

I celebrate up to six arbitrary things before breakfast.
Time does drag on and on and contain spoilers. Be aware of memes.

User avatar
edo
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:05 pm UTC
Location: ~TrApPeD iN mY PhOnE~

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby edo » Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:47 pm UTC

Weeks wrote:
bondsbw wrote:Image
Aww it's deformed...


would you prefer this one?
Image
Co-proprietor of a Mome and Pope Shope

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1993
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Weeks » Thu Nov 10, 2016 8:53 pm UTC

Those skyscrapers are really tall!
NieXS wrote:Oh god that smiley ruined it.
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Mutex wrote:Enjoy the shoe!

User avatar
Keyman
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:56 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Keyman » Thu Nov 10, 2016 10:07 pm UTC

Karantalsis wrote:Speaking about Freedom all the time, and particularly with Trump as being a representative thereof, confuses me. I'm not American and as an outsider, your country looks among the least free in general, and with most restricted in rights in particular, in the developed world. Certainly less free than the UK, Germany, Portugal and many other European nations. The more I read of it the more I think the word freedom is being used to mean totally different things.

From my perspective (a left-wing European) it appears that many Americans want the freedom to impinge on the rights of others. To me that doesn't appear to be freedom as it restricts one, or, usually, more people to increase the benefit to another, so is, in fact, a reduction in freedom. If everyone has the right to exploit each other in such a way as to restrict access to transport, say, but only a minority have the means to do that, then they restrict the rights of the majority. If that right to restrict access to transport is abrogated by a governmental authority that is an increase, not a decrease, in rights and freedoms.

I can see how these two definitions of freedom both make sense, but I can only see one that is moral and good of the two. I might be (and am likely to be) misunderstanding your positions, though, as I think the American culture, and as such political mentality, is so far away from the rest of the developed world that it is actively confusing.

As an American, and looking out, I think the highlighted part is correct. It does sound like you are using the word "freedom" differently than I do. It's also possible you are mistaking "freedom" for "right". I generally have the 'freedom' to do most anything which doesn't interfere with the 'rights' of others. Taking your example, no one in America has a right to "restrict access to transport" (unless it's my privately owned car, then get your mitts off Vivienne, dammit! :wink: ). However we are not obligated to provide transport.

Having said that, many of the major metropolitan areas have decided that it is a 'good thing' to take money from it's citizens to provide some publicly funded transportation system. IF they have done so, then everyone has an equal right to use it. The issue is, do a majority of the citizens (through their civic representative) agree that this is a good use of public funds and therefore 'willingly' allow their money to be spent on it.

There are innumerable instances of other things that kind of fall into the same category - IF "it" is available, then all citizens have a right to access "it", but there may be no specific obligation to provide "it". I suspect the difference is in an itemized list of what counts as "it".
A childhood spent walking while reading books has prepared me unexpectedly well for today's world.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3430
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby rmsgrey » Thu Nov 10, 2016 10:15 pm UTC

azule wrote:Freedom includes the freedom to restrict the freedom of others, no?


The classic line is "your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose".

In general, there come points where increasing freedom for one individual means reducing freedom for another - or to put it in other terms, every right granted to someone creates complementary duties for everyone else to respect that right. If I have the right to walk along a particular path, then everyone else has a duty to not render the path impassable (which can cause - and has caused - legal issues for construction work and road repair).

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Thu Nov 10, 2016 10:27 pm UTC

Karantalsis wrote: The more I read of it the more I think the word freedom is being used to mean totally different things.
Regarding the actual word: What country are you from and what would you consider to be the translation in your native tongue?
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1993
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Weeks » Thu Nov 10, 2016 11:00 pm UTC

"Destitute"
NieXS wrote:Oh god that smiley ruined it.
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Mutex wrote:Enjoy the shoe!

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5547
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Eternal Density » Fri Nov 11, 2016 10:55 am UTC

Whops, I missed this one somehow. I guess this is the reverse of http://xkcd.com/943/
Weeks wrote:I'm voting for John Cena.

Reminds me of the stinger of last year's Desert Bus for Hope https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-FN3PNZKgcI
Speaking of, Desert Bus 10 starts this weekend!
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Fri Nov 11, 2016 2:48 pm UTC

I think this is a joke, but I thought the same thing about Trump for president. Could someone here enlighten me?

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26198
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby SecondTalon » Fri Nov 11, 2016 2:54 pm UTC

BytEfLUSh wrote:You folks seem too upset over nothing. Yeah, candidate A won presidency in country X while candidate B didn't, in the same country. *yawn* Yeah, so interesting. *yawn*
Like that's gonna change anything.

Relax.

Have a slice of pizza.

Image

Have an entire pizza, because why not? Just be sure to get another one for me.

Image

If you don't like pizza, too bad. I don't like cookies and cakes and chocolate. Get them elsewhere. I like pizza. Randall should make a comic about pizza and how great it is. Pizza will still have the same great taste, no matter who gets elected as a president of country X.

This message has been brought to you by Pizza.


I'd like to take a moment to mention even Pizza has been ruined by this election.

No, really.

The Alt-Right has used some weird ass-logic and the Clinton Emails to deduce that pizza is a code word for child trafficking.

I'm serious.

That's where we are. That's the world we live in.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

drazen
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:35 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby drazen » Fri Nov 11, 2016 3:32 pm UTC

Respectfully, I don't think you would put your money where your mouth is on this one, or you already would have.


It's not as simple as "just move." Where can I get a moderate-right, non-crazy state with the relatively reasonable climate of the northeast? I have zero desire to live where it's sticky and 90+ degrees for six months of the year. NH and to a lesser extent PA are the only two candidates that come close. My opposition to the income tax, an issue as big as 1A/2A for me, eliminates all but a handful of states anyway. I also have aging parents here and am pretty much the one who will need to look after them. And finding a job out of state (or living there) where you have no support network in place isn't exactly the easiest thing in the world. There would need to be a transitional assistance program of some sort in any crack-up.

a bunch of idiots voting against their own best interests out of some kind of confused stupor


The mistake you make here is that you are defining someone else's "own best interests" for them. Others will have a different value matrix than you; every time a left winger says that, they come off as incredibly arrogant. You are implying that YOU know what's best for someone else, or that you are more worthy of deciding what they care about the most. The sanctimonious condescension, hypocrisy, arrogance, and hysterical behavior of the left was damn near enough to drive me to vote for Trump, a man I loathe, just out of spite for the people I loathe even more. I didn't, but the temptation to give the biggest "F-U" ever to the people screwing me over was definitely something I felt, and I'm not even in a swing state.

In 2016, my "interests" were preserving 1A / 2A / 4A, opposition to 16A, and opposition to compulsory behavior (e.g., the insurance mandate). Hillary was awful on every single one of them (and pretty much everything). Trump was also awful on most of the issues I cared about, but unpredictable; there was a 0% chance Clinton would ever do anything I'd like, whereas there was an unknown, non-zero chance Trump would do something I'd like. Johnson was pretty decent on all of the issues I cared about, and thus he ultimately got my vote.

instead of winning by only 9 electoral votes, Trump would have won by 36


By the count I see, if you take the preliminary results, Trump won 306-232, unless AZ/MI flipped blue in a recount and I missed it. That's a wider margin than 9.

Today, my hope is that some people will come to realize that they have slandered those who conditionally supported Donald Trump. I don't expect him to Make America Great, but I do expect him to Probably Not Make America The Hunger Games.


America is kind of the Hunger Games anyway. Not the child murder tournament part, obviously, but the part about central government living high on the hog while looking down on the districts (states) that it beats down on a regular basis, screwing people over and saying it's for their own good.

cupric
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:29 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby cupric » Fri Nov 11, 2016 4:48 pm UTC

drazen wrote:
Today, my hope is that some people will come to realize that they have slandered those who conditionally supported Donald Trump. I don't expect him to Make America Great, but I do expect him to Probably Not Make America The Hunger Games.


America is kind of the Hunger Games anyway. Not the child murder tournament part, obviously, but the part about central government living high on the hog while looking down on the districts (states) that it beats down on a regular basis, screwing people over and saying it's for their own good.


Image

District 12 is officially done with your shit.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2956
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby orthogon » Fri Nov 11, 2016 5:58 pm UTC

Flumble wrote:
Zamfir wrote:
Karlskoga prioritized day cares ... areas around the largest work places ... schools, and then the main roads.

What the literal fuck does that have to do with "gender equality" or "prioritizing for women"?

It's outrageous to attach such politics/labels when all they did was optimise the snow ploughing for usage patterns. Even if this change is exclusively incited by someone shouting "the ploughing schedule is sexist!", the result is simply optimised for usage patterns. :x

This kind of stuff really makes me cross. It's not so bad on an internet forum where you can go off and check the details immediately, but when someone comes out with some story like this in meatspace, they're standing there all triumphant like they've proved their point, and all you can do is say "hmm, I hadn't heard about that, but it doesn't sound like a thing that would have happened".

Example:
Spoiler:
My brother-in-law was citing some council that had supposedly silenced the bells of a village church so as not to offend Muslims. Later I had the chance to Google it and it turned out the bell had been removed for a couple of years for renovation; in the meantime a housing estate had been built next to it and people had moved in. Then they put the bell back; it rang every hour through the night. The new residents complained, and it was reconfigured to ring only during the day. It just so happened that there were quite a lot of south Asians amongst the residents, hence the story.


The trouble is that the story is just so compelling to somebody who wants to believe it, and somehow the onus is on their interlocutor to disprove it. And it's even worse when it's a more general trend that's being claimed. I've met neighbours who are convinced that ethic minorities and Muslims are given preferential access to social housing. They have nothing but anecdotal evidence, but I have no evidence at all apart from my incredulousness. Rebutting it properly would take shitloads of time and effort, and the result may be too subtle to explain to an uncooperative adversary.

Someone being wrong on the internet is frustrating, but someone being wrong IRL is infuriating.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4875
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:50 pm UTC

drazen wrote:
a bunch of idiots voting against their own best interests out of some kind of confused stupor

The mistake you make here is that you are defining someone else's "own best interests" for them.

I gave a specific, very personal example of that. My mother is disabled and survives entirely off of social programs that may likely have to be cut as a consequence of Trump's proposed tax cuts. Yet she voted for Trump, not because of any kind of principled stand for amendments she thinks he'll defend better or anything like that, but because Hillary is a literal Satan-worshipping Illuminati in the world of unfiltered bullshit the Internet funnels into her mind. That is very obviously against her own best interest, and out of some kind of confused stupor.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

cupric
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:29 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby cupric » Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:01 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:That is very obviously against her own best interest, and out of some kind of confused stupor.


Thank you for demonstrating, better than I ever could explain, how Trump became President Elect of the United States, and why he will probably be elected to a second term in 2020.*

You took a single parameter -- your mom's government income -- implicitly declared it to be the most important measure of her well-being, made a guess as to how it might change in the future, assumed this to be Objective Science Fact, and then publicly impugned her sanity because she won't accept this chain of "reasoning".

The question isn't why she trusts internet wahoos more than you, it's why she still bothers talking to you. She takes those people seriously because they give voice to her concerns and speak to her as a rational moral agent, rather than an idiot child.



* Not even kidding. Just you wait and see.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4875
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:06 pm UTC

You did read the part about "Hillary is literally a Satan-worshiping Illuminati", right? That is the crazy part. If she had some kind of actual reason that she thought outweighed the threat to her survival, that's something I could just agree to disagree. But when I raised that concern, she hadn't even thought of it, and quickly brushed passed it to continue ranting about how she has to defeat the Satanist. That is just patently insane.

Other reasons she had for voting Trump included:
- He's going to send the Muslims back to Africa and keep America a Christian Nation (her usual brand of religious lunacy, crossed with some bad ethnogeography and possibly racism if she's assuming Muslim = black?)
- He's going to get rid of the fucking Mexicans (who knew Mom was racist!? There were hints, some "I'm not racist but..." kinds of comments that I could chalk up to her being old and afraid of differences, but this?)
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby KrytenKoro » Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:44 pm UTC

cupric wrote:You took a single parameter -- your mom's government income -- implicitly declared it to be the most important measure of her well-being, made a guess as to how it might change in the future, assumed this to be Objective Science Fact, and then publicly impugned her sanity because she won't accept this chain of "reasoning".

This is assinine. If someone does manage to come up with a not fundamentally stupid reason to support a candidate, and it's demonstrable that supporting the candidate won't actually achieve that, it is absolutely correct to point out they are not acting in their own best interests. No point of that requires that you "decide what's in their best interests for them", it just requires you to be less stupid.

For the few people voting for Trump to "bring the jobs back" -- well, the jobs are fucking gone, due to automation. Bringing them back will, at best, be heavily subsidized, mostly unproductive, and lead to a lot of disaster, as with the proposal to bring back coal mining. Better solutions -- massive retraining efforts, or some sort of New Deal-style makework to have people work on our ailing infrastructure. Or like with the wall -- the whole thing is a complete joke of a solution to the "problem", and will essentially be pissing money down the drain and accomplishing nothing.

For people who wanted Bernie's progressivism to succeed and thought the solution to that was to ignore Bernie's advice and keep attacking Clinton through the general campaigning -- good job, fuckers.

It is absolutely the job of a responsible government to say "tell us what you value, and we'll figure out a way to bring it to you, even if you don't agree with how we do it". If people had their way, no one would ever pay taxes -- but they'd be shocked that they can't afford to see a doctor. Fuck, people like Trump and Steve Jobs weasel their way out of paying taxes and then bitch about how the government isn't providing essential services.

The question isn't why she trusts internet wahoos more than you, it's why she still bothers talking to you. She takes those people seriously because they give voice to her concerns and speak to her as a rational moral agent, rather than an idiot child.

And this is why I don't put much trust in people who go on and on about how people supporting some apparently self-destructive agenda "must have some unknown, rational reason for it".

Because you're fucking making it up, and it's a whole exercise in faithless devil's advocating, or even worse, outright dishonesty.

Fuck, man, I've met people, in person, whose reasons for voting for Trump were explicitly racist. A lot of them. Some of them are extended family. I don't invite these conversations, either. Sometimes it's people on the street talking about how "we need to get rid of Muslims because they have the nerve to come over to this country and not integrate to the existing culture" and it's like are you fucking serious?

The only way you can possibly believe that liberals are just making this all up is if you are purposefully trying to be disingenuous and dishonest. You don't have a good reason to doubt the liberal's honesty in recounting their experience, you don't have evidence for your claim (trying to prove a negative), all you have is bald-faced "but I want them to be the good guys despite all evidence to the contrary!" partisanship. It's bullshit.

a rational moral agent, rather than an idiot child.

Bigots essentially are idiot children. That's the whole crux of why bigotry is bad, is that it is not only unjust but self-destructive. Even the biggest apologists for why you should not call out racism keep talking about how you have to show them how something is "not in their interests", that it's the way to get through to them.

There's no ethical or rational compromising with bigotry. There's manipulative attempts to sidestep it or subvert it, but you cannot simultaneously ethically and honestly sell a policy on how it will accomplish the goals of the KKK. Either you're lying to the KKK and trying to trick them into the vote, or you're a monster.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:53 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
cupric wrote:You took a single parameter -- your mom's government income -- implicitly declared it to be the most important measure of her well-being, made a guess as to how it might change in the future, assumed this to be Objective Science Fact, and then publicly impugned her sanity because she won't accept this chain of "reasoning".

This is assinine. If someone does manage to come up with a not fundamentally stupid reason to support a candidate, and it's demonstrable that supporting the candidate won't actually achieve that, it is absolutely correct to point out they are not acting in their own best interests. No point of that requires that you "decide what's in their best interests for them", it just requires you to be less stupid.


Except proving someone wrong doesn't mean you're right. It just means you're a better debater than your opponent.

Its an issue I get when I was discussing politics with my mom (she is a Trump supporter). She's less informed than I am on virtually every issue. Not demeaning her or anything, I'm just simply more interested in politics than she is. If I wanted to, I can beat her in any rational discussion or topic, even the ones I disagree with.

Which is why I'm perfectly fine with the way the election is conducted: each voter makes the decision for themselves where the country will go. My mother's opinion is equivalent to mine at the end of the day, even if I disagree with her.

Perhaps we need to focus less on debating and more on convincing people to join our beliefs. Debate, discussion, and persuasion are in fact different skills.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:56 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

teelo
Posts: 760
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:50 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby teelo » Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:56 pm UTC

It just occurred to me: the arrow is pointing to the right. England is to the right of America. "Her" is referring to QE2. The voters actually want to return to being a British Colony, hence not voting for Republicans. It all makes sense now.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby KrytenKoro » Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:01 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Except proving someone wrong doesn't mean you're right. It just means you're a better debater than your opponent.

Its an issue I get when I was discussing politics with my mom (she is a Trump supporter). She's less informed than I am on virtually every issue. Not demeaning her or anything, I'm just simply more interested in politics than she is. If I wanted to, I can beat her in any rational discussion or topic, even the ones I disagree with.

Which is why I'm perfectly fine with the way the election is conducted: each voter makes the decision for themselves where the country will go. My mother's opinion is equivalent to mine at the end of the day, even if I disagree with her.

Perhaps we need to focus less on debating and more on convincing people to join our beliefs. Debate, discussion, and persuasion are in fact different skills.

The situation I and Pfhorrest were responding to was about whether people can be trusted to act reliably in their own interests, not about debating.

Yes, persuasion is more important for achieving goals, because people cannot be trusted to respond to rational debates. That does feed into why they can't be reliably trusted to act in their own best interests, I guess.

teelo wrote:It just occurred to me: the arrow is pointing to the right. England is to the right of America. "Her" is referring to QE2. The voters actually want to return to being a British Colony, hence not voting for Republicans. It all makes sense now.


God, if only, I've been soured on the whole Revolution ever since I read more about history than the sanitized propaganda they feed you in school.

When a major effect of securing independence is to continue the systematic enslavement of others past when the mother country eliminated it, they don't get to talk to me about being the "Land of the Free". America hasn't been Great yet, much less it being something to get back to.
Last edited by KrytenKoro on Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:22 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
wst
Posts: 2613
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:06 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby wst » Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:01 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Perhaps we need to focus less on debating and more on convincing people to join our beliefs. Debate, discussion, and persuasion are in fact different skills.
This is the main thing to take away from this. There was a good thread on reddit the other day where people had to defend political stances opposite to their own. It was a really good poser. I ended up coming up with a semi-plausible case for privately owned utilities and transit.
Anything I said pre-2014 that you want to quote me on, just run it past me to check I still agree with myself.

cupric
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:29 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby cupric » Fri Nov 11, 2016 10:30 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
cupric wrote:You took a single parameter -- your mom's government income -- implicitly declared it to be the most important measure of her well-being, made a guess as to how it might change in the future, assumed this to be Objective Science Fact, and then publicly impugned her sanity because she won't accept this chain of "reasoning".

This is assinine. If someone does manage to come up with a not fundamentally stupid reason to support a candidate, and it's demonstrable that supporting the candidate won't actually achieve that, it is absolutely correct to point out they are not acting in their own best interests. No point of that requires that you "decide what's in their best interests for them", it just requires you to be less stupid.

For the few people voting for Trump to "bring the jobs back" -- well, the jobs are fucking gone, due to automation. Bringing them back will, at best, be heavily subsidized, mostly unproductive, and lead to a lot of disaster, as with the proposal to bring back coal mining. Better solutions -- massive retraining efforts, or some sort of New Deal-style makework to have people work on our ailing infrastructure. Or like with the wall -- the whole thing is a complete joke of a solution to the "problem", and will essentially be pissing money down the drain and accomplishing nothing.

For people who wanted Bernie's progressivism to succeed and thought the solution to that was to ignore Bernie's advice and keep attacking Clinton through the general campaigning -- good job, fuckers.

It is absolutely the job of a responsible government to say "tell us what you value, and we'll figure out a way to bring it to you, even if you don't agree with how we do it". If people had their way, no one would ever pay taxes -- but they'd be shocked that they can't afford to see a doctor. Fuck, people like Trump and Steve Jobs weasel their way out of paying taxes and then bitch about how the government isn't providing essential services.

The question isn't why she trusts internet wahoos more than you, it's why she still bothers talking to you. She takes those people seriously because they give voice to her concerns and speak to her as a rational moral agent, rather than an idiot child.

And this is why I don't put much trust in people who go on and on about how people supporting some apparently self-destructive agenda "must have some unknown, rational reason for it".

Because you're fucking making it up, and it's a whole exercise in faithless devil's advocating, or even worse, outright dishonesty.

Fuck, man, I've met people, in person, whose reasons for voting for Trump were explicitly racist. A lot of them. Some of them are extended family. I don't invite these conversations, either. Sometimes it's people on the street talking about how "we need to get rid of Muslims because they have the nerve to come over to this country and not integrate to the existing culture" and it's like are you fucking serious?

The only way you can possibly believe that liberals are just making this all up is if you are purposefully trying to be disingenuous and dishonest. You don't have a good reason to doubt the liberal's honesty in recounting their experience, you don't have evidence for your claim (trying to prove a negative), all you have is bald-faced "but I want them to be the good guys despite all evidence to the contrary!" partisanship. It's bullshit.

a rational moral agent, rather than an idiot child.

Bigots essentially are idiot children. That's the whole crux of why bigotry is bad, is that it is not only unjust but self-destructive. Even the biggest apologists for why you should not call out racism keep talking about how you have to show them how something is "not in their interests", that it's the way to get through to them.

There's no ethical or rational compromising with bigotry. There's manipulative attempts to sidestep it or subvert it, but you cannot simultaneously ethically and honestly sell a policy on how it will accomplish the goals of the KKK. Either you're lying to the KKK and trying to trick them into the vote, or you're a monster.


Do you want #Trump2020 ? Because this is how you get #Trump2020

I hope everyone else on the thread is getting a good look at this. And then consider how one person like KrytenKoro can undo all the patient work done by dozens of you trying to turn others to your way of thinking.

The more you agree with the basic view that KrytenKoro is espousing, the more you need to push back against these kind of tactics.

I'm partly content, in a kind of schadenfreude-y way, to let this kind of conversation go on indefinitely, because it makes my case for me with minimal effort my part. But I would be happier, all things considered, to see The Donald get his head handed to him by a solid Democratic candidate, supported by reasoned argument, and an honest acknowledgement of whatever flaws that candidate may have.

You're certainly not got going to beat him with accusations and invective. He is waaaaaay better at it than you.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:10 am UTC

The problem I see with the whole 'elected fair and square' rhetoric after the election of someone who got elected by promising to subjugate the people considered inferior, is that the perceived lesser people never got a fair chance to defend themselves. Since they aren't the numerical majority a general election is unfair for matters that concern them specifically.
KrytenKoro wrote:
teelo wrote:It just occurred to me: the arrow is pointing to the right. England is to the right of America. "Her" is referring to QE2. The voters actually want to return to being a British Colony, hence not voting for Republicans. It all makes sense now.


God, if only, I've been soured on the whole Revolution ever since I read more about history than the sanitized propaganda they feed you in school.

When a major effect of securing independence is to continue the systematic enslavement of others past when the mother country eliminated it, they don't get to talk to me about being the "Land of the Free". America hasn't been Great yet, much less it being something to get back to.

Could you please wait until after the Brexit before seeking reconciliation? It's not that I dislike Americans, I mean, the majority seems okay, but I would prefer the other 47,2% doesn't get to vote for the European parliament. Our (moderate) national socialist parties get enough votes as it is, with the huge influx of American white supremacists they could become a major possibly radical faction.

User avatar
Keyman
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:56 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Keyman » Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:46 am UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:I think this is a joke, but I thought the same thing about Trump for president. Could someone here enlighten me?

Ca-leave-fornia.
A childhood spent walking while reading books has prepared me unexpectedly well for today's world.

User avatar
Old Bruce
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:27 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Old Bruce » Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:00 am UTC

teelo wrote:It just occurred to me: the arrow is pointing to the right. England is to the right of America. "Her" is referring to QE2. The voters actually want to return to being a British Colony, hence not voting for Republicans. It all makes sense now.

Okay, makes sense to me. I guess...

Oops, I just hurt my brain a bit.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3430
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby rmsgrey » Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:27 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:Could you please wait until after the Brexit before seeking reconciliation? It's not that I dislike Americans, I mean, the majority seems okay, but I would prefer the other 47,2% doesn't get to vote for the European parliament. Our (moderate) national socialist parties get enough votes as it is, with the huge influx of American white supremacists they could become a major possibly radical faction.


On the current timetable, Brexit should happen before the next European elections - and even if it doesn't, unless it ends up being scrapped entirely, it seems more likely that we'd negotiate an arrangement that involves our votes not affecting the result than that we'd be included.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2049
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Flumble » Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:48 pm UTC

Apologies for the late reply,
Zamfir wrote:
What the literal fuck does that have to do with "gender equality" or "prioritizing for women"?


Afacit, they had a working group that was looking at gender issues in the municipality. The working group noticed the pattern that roads towards heavily male jobs got cleaned first, and then people changed the pattern.

So they didn't attach the label afterwards, it was there from the start. Strikes me as about the most clear-cut value of such a group - look at issues from a different direction, to find ingrained patterns that no one questioned before.

I wholeheartedly agree with the last bit, and that should be acknowledged in the report (so not only the municipality is aware of the working group's value, but also the citizens).
But e.g. the report you cited starts with "more emphasis on areas often frequented by women" (more emphasis emphasis mine), which hints to favouring a specific group rather than going for (gender) equality. (And the online discourse of course takes this reading to its illogical extremes.) In my opinion there was no emphasis on areas often frequented by women in the old situation and neither in the new situation. If anyone has gotten more emphasis it's the children, but really, did they get emphasis or is snow ploughing around daycares and schools simply in the best interest of the whole society?

So next time the ploughing schedule is changed and now follows up with refugee camps after daycare, I'd advice The Local to start the report with something like
After research by the Safe Haven Working Group turned out the snow removal priorities favoured those who live inside towns, the municipality has improved its schedule. Authorities explained that the system did not intentionally discriminate against anyone, rather that it was simply being carried out "as it always has been".

After review, the municipality now prioritizes day cares ... access roads ... schools ... working places ... and main roads. The move didn't incur any extra cost and has produced promising results.
...

...to make clear that it's not a Jewish conspiracy to repress the white man, but that it's simply better.


rmsgrey wrote:On the current timetable, Brexit should happen before the next European elections - and even if it doesn't, unless it ends up being scrapped entirely, it seems more likely that we'd negotiate an arrangement that involves our votes not affecting the result than that we'd be included.

Is it actually going to happen? I know a lot of people act like it's already happened, but unless I've missed something the government hasn't even filed a letter to the EU to start the process, right?

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1863
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Sableagle » Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:59 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:
sotanaht wrote:Trump is merely inadequate. If you think he's going to be institutionalizing racism or something to that degree you are wrong.


I really hope you're right.
We can't be sure yet, apparently:


... but it's not looking good so far:
Donald Trump's victory followed by wave of hate crime attacks against minorities across US - led by his supporters

... another woman approached, pulled off her hijab and said: “This is not allowed anymore, so go hang yourself with it around your neck not on your head.”

“We have two kids wearing Trump shirts pull a hijab off a Muslim girl today at school. OSS [out-of-school suspension] for five days. When asked why? ‘Because she’s about to get kicked out anyway and we won.’”

... victory and “how they’re glad they won’t have to deal with n*****s much longer”. “One walked over to me and said ‘how scared are you, you black b****? I should just kill you right now, you’re a waste of air’,” she wrote.

... a man shoved her off the pavement. “He said ‘no n*****s allowed on the sidewalk’. I was shocked, I had no words,” she said in a video posted on social media.

“As they sped their truck up on me, they rolled their window down and yelled: ‘F*** you n***** b****,” she wrote. “Trump is going to deport you back to Africa'. In my 33 years of live, I’ve never had blatant racism shown to me than in that moment.”

Elsewhere, a woman jogging in Bloomingdale, Florida, was told to “go back to Africa” by a passer-by, and graffiti at a school in Minnesota read “fuck n*****s #whitesonly #whiteamerica #trump”.

‘I can’t wait until Trump asks us to rape your people and send you back over the biggest damn wall we’re going to build. Go back to hell, wet back.’

“Can't wait until your 'marriage' is overturned by a real president. Gay families = burn in hell. Trump 2016.”
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

Mutex
Posts: 1364
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Mutex » Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:09 pm UTC

That's not evidence of him institutionalising racism, merely that a lot of his more racist followers have been emboldened by his election. Not great either though.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1863
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Sableagle » Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:32 pm UTC

Ayelis wrote:
cupric wrote:working class whites and other deplorables?

Do you have any idea the context in which the word "deplorables" was used? Why am I asking, obviously not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfX-c81ltPk

Hillary wrote:You could put ... half of Trump's supporters into what I call the 'Basket of Deplorables,' ... right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, islamophobic, you name it ...

Donald wrote:I was thus deeply shocke and alarmed this Friday to hear my opponent attack, slander, smear, demean, these wonderful, amazing people who are supporting our campaign by the millions.


Maybe she got the percentage wrong. That was the bit she said she regretted using, the word "half."

Roland Martin wrote:February, two thirds of Trump supporters, an unfavourable view of American Muslims. 87% wanted to ban Muslims from entering the US. June, 58% of Trump supporters had an unfavourable view of Muslims. 52% opposed rights for LGBT Americans. 50% of Trump backers saw blacks as violent and criminals. 40% said blacks were lazy and rude. May, 65% of Trump supporters say President Obama is a secret Muslim. 59% say Obama was not born in the US. This year, 69% of Trump supporters say immigrants are a burden to America. 50% say immigrants will commit serious crimes.


I could argue on behalf of the deplorables that it's perfectly reasonable to view your fellow humans unfavourably and consider them lazy, violent, rude criminals and that some of them certainly will commit serious crimes, so maybe just maybe the survey needs to gather and/or present more data concerning whether the people surveyed consider one group significantly lazier, ruder, more violent or more criminal that others.

Alternatively, I could say Hillary's "half" may have been a bit of an underestimate, at least at some points during the campaign.

...

Question: Am I supposed to put a capital "B" on "black" in this context? I can't remember which argument won that referendum.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

Tallest Skil
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 5:57 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Tallest Skil » Sat Nov 12, 2016 7:04 pm UTC

Netreker0 wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:
Netreker0 wrote:Also, the use of "sacred cow" as an insulting and derisive reference mocking the Hindu religion. It really demonstrates what cowards some people are


Oh, come the fuck off it. The Hebrews worshipped a golden cow as an idol while they waited for Moses to return. That’s the etymology.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1863
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Sableagle » Sat Nov 12, 2016 7:25 pm UTC

Easy mistake to make. That was all a long time ago and self-identified Hindus getting upset about bovines is an ongoing thing.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26198
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby SecondTalon » Sat Nov 12, 2016 7:27 pm UTC

Tallest Skil wrote:
Netreker0 wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:
Netreker0 wrote:Also, the use of "sacred cow" as an insulting and derisive reference mocking the Hindu religion. It really demonstrates what cowards some people are


Oh, come the fuck off it. The Hebrews worshipped a golden cow as an idol while they waited for Moses to return. That’s the etymology.
Citation needed. All the sources I can find point to American usage in the late 19th century specifically as a reference to the Hindu.

And more accurately, also thought by 19th century Americans to also belong to the Muslims (referred to then as Mohammedans)
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

Soteria
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:18 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Soteria » Sat Nov 12, 2016 8:43 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:The situation I and Pfhorrest were responding to was about whether people can be trusted to act reliably in their own interests, not about debating.


It is often a fairly odious attitude, though--that voters ought to strictly vote "in their own interests," and that you, the rational liberal, know those interests better than <insert group here>. I know a number of older voters, poor voters, or members of various minorities who vote Republican because they think that party will do better for the country, despite what anyone would tell them about how Democrats will give them more money. I don't find it admirable at all to vote for the candidate who will benefit you personally the most.

I talked to a Californian the other day who voted in favor of raising taxes on those who make over $250k. She said, "Sure, that's not me!" I have a lot more respect for rich liberals who vote for higher taxes on the rich (themselves) than the middle/lower class ones who vote to raise taxes on someone else and pat themselves on the back for helping poor people.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26453
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:05 pm UTC

It's not a matter of claiming to know their interests better than them, it's a matter of believing them when they say what their interests aare, and then knowing enough history and economics to make a good guess about what candidates and policies will serve those interests.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Soteria
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:18 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Soteria » Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:37 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:It's not a matter of claiming to know their interests better than them, it's a matter of believing them when they say what their interests aare, and then knowing enough history and economics to make a good guess about what candidates and policies will serve those interests.


Hardly. In Phorrest's example, his mother said she was worried about Hillary being some sort of Satanist. She doesn't seem very rational, sadly, but you can't honestly say that anyone here is "believing them when they say what their interests aare." And even if we ignore that example, most of the liberals I know who make comments about people "voting against their own interests" make it explicitly clear that they believe that (for example) poor people should be voting for Democrats because they'll increase benefits for poor folks like Medicaid.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests