In what sense was Trump's campaign more fueled by fear, hatred, 'the other,' anger, and doubt than Clinton's? This is what I mean about being delusional. You simply can't afford it anymore. Look at what actually happened, not what you wished would have happened because it comforts your world-view.

In what sense was Trump's campaign more fueled by fear, hatred, 'the other,' anger, and doubt than Clinton's? This is what I mean about being delusional. You simply can't afford it anymore. — TheGreatWhatever

I think it is objectively the case. You recall the long period when Sanders was refusing to concede, and there were a series of debates between he and Clinton. They were about policy - you know, 'policy' - how funds should be dispersed for healthcare, public education, tax rates, and so on. They went for hours, over periods of months.

Meanwhile, what was Trump talking about? He was stirring up headlines by making statements that most politicians wouldn't - Mexicans being thieves, Muslims being terrorists, women being suitable targets for horny celebrities who can grope them with impunity because they're famous.

You think there's no difference between hate speech and policy debate? Is that distinction beyond your powers of discrimination?

It's all a good example of why Plato said democracy is a bad form of government.

It's a textbook case.

You can't use this (or Brexit) to "prove" that democracy is a bad form of government. You need to compare it to other forms of government. Do non-democratic countries tend to be better?

This is so untrue on so many levels. I'm surprisd you would think that a Republican sweep would solve it if not exacerbate it.

You may be right, but I think Thorongil did a good job of pointing out that many within the Republican establishment - those primarily concerned with protecting large corporate interests - have been extremely hostile to Trump. If he's a typical Republican, why the discomfort? Not sure what this development portends, but it does seem to buttress Trump's self-portrayal as the anti-establishment candidate (along with Bernie Sanders) who will represent the neglected interests of working class Americans.

But sure, his vague mentions of preferred economic policy did not sound very populist to me, especially his plan to lower taxes on the wealthy even further, ostensibly as a means of getting them to set up shop and do business in the US once again. My main point was that IF he doesn't follow through with his promises to represent the economic interests of average people, then someone else will be there to rally this group that he (and Bernie) energized. If nothing else, I do see that wedge he's driven between normal people and the economic elites whom they used to support, and uncritically at that, to be a positive development. And while isolationism may not be a realistic possibility in this day and age, if it leads to less meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries to protect American or MNC business interests, that could be a good thing as well.

I'll keep abreast of the latest developments and information as it arises and reassess my views accordingly. That's the good thing about not being an ideologue or party hack who interprets facts to fit an agenda and only sees what they want to see. I'll try my best to avoid the blatant hypocrisy I've seen from both sides and search instead for the truth, which is clearly not what motivates political partisans.

You can't use this (or Brexit) to "prove" that democracy is a bad form of government. You need to compare it to other forms of government. Do non-democratic countries tend to be better? — Michael

I don't believe that's true. You do not need to show that something is worse than something else, to prove that it is bad. You just need to describe the thing, and explain why the described thing is bad. That there may be other things which are worse, is not relevant.

Au contraire, BC, I think they've tried 'smart' and it hasn't worked. Trump won by trying 'dumb' - slogans, fear, hatred, 'the other', anger, doubt, and appeals to greed ('Look how rich I am'). So 'smart' is what has failed. Dumb is the new smart. — Wayfarer

Dumb may be the new smart but I'll stand by what I said. Redistricting is a critical process, because it enables the party in power to tailor districts to suit. This might not affect the vote on a Trump or a Clinton, but it makes a lot of difference for who will occupy the US Congress and the state houses. Trump would be less of threat IF the Senate was controlled by Democrats.

Depends on the context. Sometimes the only measure of goodness and badness is a comparison with the alternatives. Muskets were good weapons at the time, but aren't nowadays.

The thing is that we have hard data to look at and see the result of having Republican leadership at the helm and economic progress of the middle class. The data seems point out that the interests of the middle class are not aligned with the interest of special interest groups that practically dictate national economic policy.

It's all a good example of why Plato said democracy is a bad form of government. — Metaphysician Undercover

Poorly functioning systems of government are all bad.

An efficiently run and relatively humane dictatorship beats a scatter-brained and cruel dictatorship. A failed democracy would not be better than a failed dictatorship.

Democracy in the US or UK is not failed. It is hobbled, at least in the US, by several factors: the way politics are financed, the way primaries are tallied (winner take all), the way the electoral college works, and so forth. Having money fed into the campaigns by a high pressure hose doesn't help either. All of these, and other factors, could and should be reformed.

Yeah that standard Republican economic agenda has been to push for unregulated global free markets, the continued dismantling of labor unions, the elimination of social services which provide a bit of a safety net for struggling citizens, and other such things. These have created the very conditions of anger and resentment amongst the populace which contributed to Trump's popularity and rise to power. I don't see how he can just maintain that business as usual approach after all he's talked about and promised. One thing is however certain: if anyone can be that blatantly dishonest and backstabbing, it would be Trump.

And on that view, I'm asking you to specify a distinction. — Terrapin Station

I have done so. More than once. Here, for example.

I'm not saying anything about significance quantification. It's just that whether something is still the same subject or not is always a matter of individual interpretation. — Terrapin Station

Even if so, importantly, it's not just about that. It's also about correctness. It's not 'anything goes'. Some interpretations are more correct than others.

Upon what are you basing what's in my interests regarding climate change and climate change policy? — Terrapin Station

I just told you: what you said about Jill Stein. And I only said that it might be applicable. It was an educated guess. I'm not a mind reader.

Or are you just assuming that I'd have a particular view on that because I voted for Jill Stein and you're assuming I'd agree with her on that issue? — Terrapin Station

I made no such assumption. I qualified with "might". But it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to think that you would likewise approve of policies which treat climate change as a priority, rather than seek to undermine it. And Trump, in stark contrast to Stein, has a poor track record in that regard.

Again, my views have just in much in common with Libertarianism, although my views aren't the same as either any other socialists, any other libertarians, or any other Green party members, etc. I've never met anyone else who has the same political views as I do, or in fact, anyone who feels that my political views are a good idea once I explain them in more detail, haha. That's why I call myself a "socialist libertarian" only in lieu of something better to call myself. No matter what I call myself, I'd have to just explain what my views are in detail. — Terrapin Station

Riiight. So, what does socialism mean to you? How do you justify using that term to form part of the position you identify with? Or is it just a hollow word for you? Little more than a label you kind of like the sound of?

I have done so. More than once. Here, for example. — Sapientia

No, that's claiming that there is a distinction. It's not specifying what the distinction is supposed to be--that is, what the specific properties of each are supposed to be that make the distinction.

I think a big mistake the Clinton campaign made was to campaign as if voting democrat was the *morally correct* thing to do. People really don't like being told by someone that it's morally wrong to not do what they want. If someone feels they're being called a racist, sexist, deplorable, by someone, they're not likely to then vote for that person. A big part of why trump won is he tapped into the needs of a voting bloc that hadn't felt it's interests had been represented and advocated for in a long time - working class white people. I think a lot of people felt like holy shit someone is finally representing MY interests! Trumps not perfect, but you can afford to make a lot of mistakes when the alternative to voting for someone who appears to be advocating for you, is to be called a racist uneducated redneck for even considering voting in your own interest. It was a big mistake and alienated a lot of people.

It was as if the Clinton campaign had a horrible smugness to it - a lot of people voting democrat seemed CONVINCED of the moral righteousness of their choice. "Only a bigot would vote for Trump". It was crazy seeing not just how disappointed but utterly SHOCKED people were by the result. I mean the result was a little surprising given the polls showed a marginal Democratic lead right up until the vote, but it was as if people hadn't even thought it was possible Hillary might NOT become POTUS. I CANT EVEN HOW COULD THIS BE?!

You must be so completely out of touch with the desires of the ordinary American. It's as if people occupy this liberal bubble and can't even grasp there's a world beyond it!

No, that's claiming that there is a distinction. — Terrapin Station

No, it isn't. It's stating what the distinction is. The distinction has to do with necessity. There are two distinctions which can be made:

1. What a person likes or prefers need not be what is in that person's best interests.

2. What is in a person's best interests need not be what that person likes or prefers.

This can easily be illustrated with examples, as I have done, and as Michael has done, and as you yourself can probably do.

It's not specifying what the distinction is supposed to be--that is, what the specific properties of each are supposed to be that make the distinction. — Terrapin Station

So now you want me to talk about properties? No. Not if that entails more than what I've already provided. That'd be moving the goal posts. I have explained why they're not equivalent, and have illustrated that with an example.

But here, I'll throw in another distinction for free, because I'm generous. Although it's really just another way of putting what I've already said:

What is in one's interests is what is beneficial to those interests, whereas what one likes is just what one likes, and need not be beneficial to those interests. The former is necessarily, by definition, beneficial to those interests, whereas the latter is not.

We're very much in agreement, I think, but I still don't like that Horowitz video, for the same reason I don't like daily show vids about dumb trump supporters. There're so many dumb people (code, here, for liberal academics) that anyone can make a worst-of vid for any group. I agree with your criticisms of academia, but the vid immediately made me think of the daily show and smooth editors.

What I am telling you is that if you believe the picture of what happened that you just outlined, you are delusional. It may be due to insularity of news source, I don't know. But to say that Clinton's criticisms of Trump were policy-oriented is totally insane. Clinton's campaign thrived on a number of fears and divisive rhetoric, including purposefully calling on and inflaming bad race relations (with the not-so-subtle implication that a huge number of Americans were crypto-white-supremacists), and abusing insults like 'misogynistic' so badly that it's a wonder if they will have any meaning over the next few years. It also relied on a massive amount of really bizarre neo-Cold War rhetoric and fantasies about Russia, with a disturbing pro-war message beneath it. What can a person call all of this, if not fear and hate?

I would be happy never to have to hear an undergraduate open their mouth again, to be honest -- what's in that video is not, from my experience, in any way atypical. And I just can't stand when someone uses a word you can tell isn't part of their native vocabulary like that, and signals 'someone told me to use this word in this situation.'

I agree - even look at OWS. I'd love to never hear a confused reference to Hardt&Negri again. But satisfaction at being smarter - or more aware - than others is the same whether we fight against 'rednecks' or sophmores with a trustfund - thats about our own merits, not about changing shit.

one could easily cobble together a vid of alt-righters being dumb for example

You could, but I have some sympathy for the alt-rghters because they have a quality that others don't -- they're funny. There's something about what's funny that can't ever fail. The people who are wrong are always unfunny. I think part of it ultimately is that those who are in power can't be funny, because anything disruptive by definition hurts them. Witness the all-embracing attempt to define what satire is and isn't, and delineate when it 'punches up' versus 'punching down.' Only a profoundly unfunny person thinks of humor in this way.

So I don't think the criticism has to be on their terms, as saying 'no, I'm actually smarter than you.' The point is to take it away from a battle of intelligence, which is really not about intelligence anyway, but a surrogate for class, and ultimately to deny the premises on which they predicate their worldview, as a product that you're not interested in buying.

Yeah that standard Republican economic agenda has been to push for unregulated global free markets, the continued dismantling of labor unions, the elimination of social services which provide a bit of a safety net for struggling citizens, and other such things. These have created the very conditions of anger and resentment amongst the populace which contributed to Trump's popularity and rise to power. I don't see how he can just maintain that business as usual approach after all he's talked about and promised. One thing is however certain: if anyone can be that blatantly dishonest and backstabbing, it would be Trump. — Erik

So, what are you suggesting? That the American public that elected him and with it the majority that the Republican party has in the House and Senate... are uneducated and misinformed?

That sadly seems to be my conclusion on the matter.

I agree with you - funny for me trumps all. But I think clickhole is funnier than most 4chan stuff. The alt-right memes quickly become as predictable as any mainstream whatever. But they do have great hair! Nice sweep, Milo!

I don't think Milo is alt-right. He's co-opted the label and tried to make it seem like a classical liberal thing, but the core seems to be white nationalist. It's not a realistic political ideology, nor one given my race I can participate in. But, like with the radfems, they're funny – that's a fact. Real humor comes from dark places, not from high places. Complacent people cannot be funny, which is why moderate liberal comedians who were in support of the Clinton campaign (Louis CK, Patton Oswalt, Amy Schumer, etc.) are profoundly unfunny when doing so.

Is clickhole like The Onion? I was raised in a center-left household where that sort of humor (Onion, Funny Times, Daily Show) was what we grew up on, and while I think it has its place, there's a sense in which it can't be truly, gut-bustingly funny.

Here is a dose of the respect Clinton supporters have for women.

no, clickhole is funnier than all that, tho I do agree with you re: Louis CK, Amy Schumer et al. Not all that funny.

(I'll be honest, I didn't watch that vid because I can't stand the young turks and I don't need to watch it to know I won't like it.)

But the alt-right shitlord troll-memes aren't really that funny. They're 'edgy.' Who cares? They have shock value, and shock value is good, even necessary, to progress through your teenage years.You have to embrace it before you can authentically move beyond it. But if you still find shock-value shit deeply funny at 27 (my age) then something went horribly wrong. Yes, whoa, you're very edgy, mannn, wow, you make jokes about 9/11?? and Muslims?? & Jews too!!!
jeez, no one can hold you back!

whoa wait, feminists and SJWs too?

dammmn.

No, stoppp, you wouldn't dare, about blacks too? About MLK? mann soo good! no fucks given, lol, amirite?

What is in one's interests is what is beneficial to those interests, — Sapientia

How is "beneficial to interests" different from meeting one's preferences with respect to interests?

(And how are one's interests not just preferences?)

Also, aren't you conflating "best for one's interests" and "best interests"? And then within that, you're pretending that a preference for meeting interests isn't a preference.

I'll give you an example of something I found utterly hilarious. It's hard to explain out of context, and wasn't even connected to the alt-right directly, but to a sister board on 4chan, r9k, which is infamous for being a meeting place for losers (although I don't know if it still is). There was a time when people started posting fake advertisements on the board for fast food restaurants, extolling their virtues and including prices of meals and saying which were their favorites. But they were written in a way that made them sound eerily casual and conversational, but still with the hallmarks of an obvious advertisement. It was just so fucking funny, the self-deprecating undertones of understanding why a self-understanding 'loser' would be a fast food connoisseur and at the same time an unwitting advertising pawn for them, it was just perfect. And not only that, they weren't repeated, but each time it happened they were freshly rewritten. It's hard to explain exactly why it was so funny because the number of subtle factors were too high. But it was in a way also a very dark sort of humor. It's that sort of thing that I think if you aren't in pain in some way, you simply cannot produce. And people who are in power, who are complacent, are not in pain in that way. The alt-right is a wing of that style of humor, and sometimes taps into it.

I respect that type of humor and deeply sympathize with it. It makes me real nostalgic for High School. That's my shit! Those are my ppl!

& I also understand that the alt-right has grown out of that kind of IDGAF messageboard ethos.

But the ethos & sense of humor I could empathize with gets lost when ppl go hard-alt-right.

Because it gets less funny!

I believe that plenty of legitimately funny 4channers went hard-right. But I think they probably got less funny as a result of that in the same way other funny ppl got less funny when they started pulling hard for HRC

Another golden age r9k production.



I used to think that the humor was an endless spiral, and that maybe there was a sort of ethical duty to remain committed to it, which precluded ever adopting a 'serious' ideology. The people who stick too hard to the alt-right have found their serious ideology, and so it can make the humor fade, because they won't suffer a joke to the thing that they now take seriously. I don't know if I feel that way anymore, and I think I would adopt an ideology if it was something worthwhile, even at the risk of not seeing the funny as clearly anymore.

Also, once something becomes mainstream, the population becomes composed of people who don't have the years of subtle in-group training baked into their experience. So when you see a 14 year old Canadian girl or whatever talk about how she's 'red pilled' and wants immigrants to leave it's not really anything but sad.

I used to think that the humor was an endless spiral, and that maybe there was a sort of ethical duty to remain committed to it, which precluded ever adopting a 'serious' ideology. The people who stick too hard to the alt-right have found their serious ideology, and so it can make the humor fade, because they won't suffer a joke to the thing that they now take seriously. I don't know if I feel that way anymore, and I think I would adopt an ideology if it was something worthwhile, even at the risk of not seeing the funny as clearly anymore.

Yeah, this is where I'm at. I love the anarchic comedic spirit (I've mentioned him before but Donald Barthelme is my saint here and is far funnier (and more morally and politically serious) than any alt-righter who thinks he can transcend any category through sheer outrage (Nigger! Normie! blahhh)

(and, sure, saying 'anarchic comedic spirit' is already to lose it, but w/e)


At a certain point, you have to ask: Is a slightly more sophisticated version of a COD player calling everyone else a fag really where I want to stake my claim?