Soupspoon wrote:No, I'm saying that their votes did not help anyone.
By a such a standard, neither did Clinton voters' votes.
The Great Hippo wrote:Tyndmyr: I'm a pacifist who believes in striving to be as harmless as I can, so killing someone is not an option. Neither is ridiculing or dismissing them. Inevitably, I just end up feeling horrible.
I also find it upsetting that you think I *decided* I can't understand this. My major in college was genocide in history. It's something I've struggled to understand for a very long time. I know certain parts of the bible are intolerant; I still do not understand why anyone would want to do this (and considering how long I've struggled over this subject, I don't think it's something you're going to help me solve).
Because it works. At least, within specific contexts. Depends on what you value.
The "killing everyone" is a hyperbolic example...what I'm asking is if someone literally cannot ever understand a position, then what value is communication? What, precisely, do you do? Voting, politics, etc...all of these things to some degree displace violence. That's why we have them, and that's why the system's important, and anarchy is garbage.
Understanding and communication are usually helpful for the cause of peace. Not always sufficient, sure, but humans naturally fear the incomprehensible other. The path of abandoning understanding leads to conflict. It's a rare fight in which the enemy is not insulted, villainized, degraded, and dehumanized before the killing starts.
The state of partisanship in the US is not so very different from more violent conflicts. We merely have vote counts instead of body bags. So far, at least.
Zohar wrote:"Not being racist" isn't a thing you can do by inaction. You have to actively work against it. Voting for Trump means they don't care enough about having an overtly racist president. Which means they're racist, to an extent. It's not a binary condition! People don't need to deny it! I'm racist sometimes, how could I not be, seeing the culture surrounding us? But they could have chosen to be less racist, and they didn't.
So? Most people are voting for exactly one candidate. A vote for them does not mean they share every trait. It merely means they evaluate the total package as less bad than the other option. And view third party candidates as unviable options.
Someone can see Trump as racist, dislike that, but dislike other things about Clinton more. That doesn't make them a racist. It just means they have different priorities than you.
KnightExemplar wrote:The election demonstrated that this line of thinking you're saying no longer holds power in the current political discourse.
You have to find a better message if you expect to win 2018 or 2020. Calling the opposing party racist and demeaning them until they agree with you simply isn't going to work (even if you apply self-deprecating language as part of the process)
This is also true.
If the democrats do not adapt to their failures, they're only going to do increasingly worse. I mean, imagine a world in which they fixate on all of Trumps errors, and in 2020, run a candidate that stands for little but insulting Trump. Trump probably wins, then. Both midterms are a dead loss for the Democrats. The party literally just goes away. They're on the ropes. They *have* to acknowledge and fix at least some of their errors, or they're doomed.