The Science of Trump Voter Hate

[Victorian Gray]

You know, all the REASONS the non-progressives may be against illegal and mass islamic immigration have been given. Repeatedly.

As usual, the leftists' reply is "You're just evil. Why all the hate?"

*sigh* We can keep repeating the reasons but when will the leftists ever listen to them instead of erasing the answer and putting in their own?

Let's sing a little tune about straw. Just follow the bouncing ball.

 

[greatnoob]

Maybe less time studying lesbian dance theory and more time on basic logic? Regressives are so sure about themselves, even (especially) when they're wrong. Maybe instead of mindless negativity, google how negations work?

A real life retard, wow!

 

[justoh]

A real life retard, wow!

We prefer the term, persons with disabilities. Thanks to bush senior and other 90s era conservatives, we've come a long way in respecting the rights and feelings of those with disabilities, but, again, regressive gonna regress.

 

[agent00f]

You know, all the REASONS the non-progressives may be against illegal and mass islamic immigration have been given. Repeatedly.

As usual, the leftists' reply is "You're just evil. Why all the hate?"

*sigh* We can keep repeating the reasons but when will the leftists ever listen to them instead of erasing the answer and putting in their own?

Why should anyone care about what simpletons think? Not a rhetorical question, given the simpleton leadership don't either.

 

[Meghan54]

No, in your case, retard is much more applicable, if not an overly understated term.

We prefer the term, persons with disabilities. Thanks to bush senior and other 90s era conservatives, we've come a long way in respecting the rights and feelings of those with disabilities, but, again, regressive gonna regress.

 

[Meghan54]

*sigh* We can keep repeating the reasons but when will the leftists ever listen to them instead of erasing the answer and putting in their own?

Once you, MaxiPad amongst others, give an answer that's coherent ande rational instead of drivel. That's why your "answers" are erased and rational answers put in.

 

[justoh]

Once you, MaxiPad amongst others, give an answer that's coherent ande rational instead of drivel. That's why your "answers" are erased and rational answers put in.

90% of the social sciences are worthless drivel. Just look at the OP. Also, hillary lost.

 

[desura]

Deja vu. In 1940, the Nazis forced Jews into Polish ghettos, where they lived in filth, disease and famine. The Nazis took films of Jews living this way, then showed the films to Germans back home, saying, see, this is how the filthy Jews live. The propaganda film "Der Ewige Juden" is the best known example.

While the consequences of this dehumanization of Muslims are not likely to be anywhere near what happened to the Jews under Nazi rule, the premise is exactly the same as the logic of your article. De-humanization of an out group is a vicious cycle that feeds on itself.

I do believe that Mexicans are unfairly stigmatized.

Which of course most people ignore for some reason. For some reason, Islam
gets more ardent defenders than Mexicans. I think it is because on some level the defenders of Islam admire the terrorist attacks and the masculine qualities of the religion.

 

[dainthomas]

Everyone wasn't called a deplorable. Read the actual quote in full.

And who cares if they were? Obama, Clinton, and all their supporters were called that and worse for eight years.

 

[zinfamous]

It wasn't spite, it was more about the failure of identity liberalism imo. The common perception in middle America (aka "flyover country") was that the liberal tent wasn't big enough to include the white middle class and evangelicals.

I actually agree with you, DSF

 

[JSt0rm]

And who cares if they were? Obama, Clinton, and all their supporters were called that and worse for eight years.

as they called themselves patriots they positioned their party to be taken over by russia. Deplorables indeed.

 

[Moonbeam]

I do believe that Mexicans are unfairly stigmatized.

Which of course most people ignore for some reason. For some reason, Islam
gets more ardent defenders than Mexicans. I think it is because on some level the defenders of Islam admire the terrorist attacks and the masculine qualities of the religion.

I guess that's why Machismo is a Finish word.

 

[agent00f]

I do believe that Mexicans are unfairly stigmatized.

Which of course most people ignore for some reason. For some reason, Islam
gets more ardent defenders than Mexicans. I think it is because on some level the defenders of Islam admire the terrorist attacks and the masculine qualities of the religion.

The anti-brown crowd is largely the same people, and they're criticized for the same reasons. Pretty easy to understand but evidently not for them.

90% of the social sciences are worthless drivel. Just look at the OP. Also, hillary lost.

You don't strike me as someone in a position to judge educated people, except maybe based on personal expertise in worthless drivel.

 

[Blue_Max]

Once you, MaxiPad amongst others, give an answer that's coherent ande rational instead of drivel. That's why your "answers" are erased and rational answers put in.

Thank you for answering in the EXACT way I mentioned earlier. "I don't LIKE the answer they gave so I'm going to call it irrational drivel!"

No. You've been given logic and you've rejected it for what feeeeeeeeeels nice.

 

[JSt0rm]

Thank you for answering in the EXACT way I mentioned earlier. "I don't LIKE the answer they gave so I'm going to call it irrational drivel!"

No. You've been given logic and you've rejected it for what feeeeeeeeeels nice.

I love how you guys keep bringing up the word logic as if you somehow have an answer based on your simple human minds ability to navigate around puzzles instead of solving them.

 

[justoh]

I love how you guys keep bringing up the word logic as if you somehow have an answer based on your simple human minds ability to navigate around puzzles instead of solving them.

Puzzles such as how to use the word "not" correctly? It's only a puzzle to regressives.

 

[Blue_Max]

I love how you guys keep bringing up the word logic as if you somehow have an answer based on your simple human minds ability to navigate around puzzles instead of solving them.

PROJECTION

It's downright amusing how you make the accusation of navigating around a problem instead of solving it when that's exactly what your intersectional progressives are doing!

PROBLEM: Mass islamic invasion (known to progressives as "immigration" or "migration") resulting in islamic violence.

Progressive "solution": Just love them more and the violence will stop as they love us back! <3 <3

Um.... no. You're assuming an awful lot with that "solution". Assuming they'll love you back when their doctrines say not to is one of thousands of facets you don't consider.

For all your claims to be the "smart ones" - why are your solutions so basic, surface-level, full of false assumptions, and utterly flawed?

 

[Commodus]

PROBLEM: Mass islamic invasion (known to progressives as "immigration" or "migration") resulting in islamic violence.

Progressive "solution": Just love them more and the violence will stop as they love us back! <3 <3

Um.... no. You're assuming an awful lot with that "solution". Assuming they'll love you back when their doctrines say not to is one of thousands of facets you don't consider.

For all your claims to be the "smart ones" - why are your solutions so basic, surface-level, full of false assumptions, and utterly flawed?

Here's the problem: positioning Islam itself as the enemy, not extremists, only serves to fuel those extremists' causes. "See, they hate Islam as a whole! Anything and everything we do against them is completely justified!"

No, the left's solution is not a simplistic "love them more." It's called recognizing that Islam is not a uniform entity where everyone believes the same things to the same degree, and that obviously discriminatory efforts like Trump's Muslim ban are not only ineffective, but possibly counterproductive. The countries affected by the ban? Yeah, not one person from those countries has committed a violent attack in the US. Islamic violence as a whole in the US is actually small relative to that committed by other groups.

Also, I find it highly ironic that you accuse the left of adhering to simplistic ideas when that's literally the entire basis for your views. Immigration of Muslims to you is an "invasion," a single-minded, faceless horde that must be stopped at all costs. You don't treat them as a complex, varied group of people.

 

[Jhhnn]

PROBLEM: Mass islamic invasion (known to progressives as "immigration" or "migration") resulting in islamic violence.

Fake news.

Garbage in, garbage out as usual from you.

 

[desura]

Here's the problem: positioning Islam itself as the enemy, not extremists, only serves to fuel those extremists' causes. "See, they hate Islam as a whole! Anything and everything we do against them is completely justified!"

No, the left's solution is not a simplistic "love them more." It's called recognizing that Islam is not a uniform entity where everyone believes the same things to the same degree, and that obviously discriminatory efforts like Trump's Muslim ban are not only ineffective, but possibly counterproductive. The countries affected by the ban? Yeah, not one person from those countries has committed a violent attack. Islamic violence as a whole in the US is actually small relative to that committed by other groups.

Also, I find it highly ironic that you accuse the left of adhering to simplistic ideas when that's literally the entire basis for your views. Immigration of Muslims to you is an "invasion," a single-minded, faceless horde that must be stopped at all costs. You don't treat them as a complex, varied group of people.

Every civilizational group has individuals within it, but broad trends to occur as a result of the religion and how it is implemented across a mass society. Some are peaceful, some are violent. Islam appears to create more violence than other religions, more conflict. Muslims clash not just with Europeans, but they have killed Chinese and Hindus in Kunming and Mumbai.

Of course we should pay lip service to Islam is a religion of peace etc because lip service costs nothing. But actual on the ground policies where it matters you have to see the truth of the situation.

I am aware of the complexities of the Muslim world. Particularly, I think banning Iranians is foolish. However, Pakistanis and the Sunni Muslim 9-11 countries should have severe restrictions.

 

[Blue_Max]

Fake news.

Garbage in, garbage out as usual from you.

Are you REALLY making the claim that mass islamic migration hasn't caused huge problems across Europe?

Are you that dishonest? I suppose your narrative depends on your claim in order to work....

 

[Blue_Max]

Here's the problem: positioning Islam itself as the enemy, not extremists, only serves to fuel those extremists' causes. "See, they hate Islam as a whole! Anything and everything we do against them is completely justified!"

No, the left's solution is not a simplistic "love them more." It's called recognizing that Islam is not a uniform entity where everyone believes the same things to the same degree, and that obviously discriminatory efforts like Trump's Muslim ban are not only ineffective, but possibly counterproductive. The countries affected by the ban? Yeah, not one person from those countries has committed a violent attack in the US. Islamic violence as a whole in the US is actually small relative to that committed by other groups.

Also, I find it highly ironic that you accuse the left of adhering to simplistic ideas when that's literally the entire basis for your views. Immigration of Muslims to you is an "invasion," a single-minded, faceless horde that must be stopped at all costs. You don't treat them as a complex, varied group of people.

You need to learn the doctrines and teachings of islam. Unfortunately, the whole violence thing is NOT merely extremists. Extremists are the ones merely following the teachings exactly, and "moderates" merely assist them, hide them, or do nothing to prevent them. No, it may not be a complete uniformity, but the basic tenets across the board include islam and sharia dominating the world. It's not pleasant to consider, the implications are worse, and the solutions are horrible.

The leftist method is to pretend the problems don't exist at all, and that anyone bringing up those issues is the real source of trouble. Ignore it. Live in a pretend world. Anyone bringing up reality ruins the pretty pretend world, thus is the real enemy. *sigh*

 

[Commodus]

Every civilizational group has individuals within it, but broad trends to occur as a result of the religion and how it is implemented across a mass society. Some are peaceful, some are violent. Islam appears to create more violence than other religions, more conflict. Muslims clash not just with Europeans, but they have killed Chinese and Hindus in Kunming and Mumbai.

Of course we should pay lip service to Islam is a religion of peace etc because lip service costs nothing. But actual on the ground policies where it matters you have to see the truth of the situation.

I am aware of the complexities of the Muslim world. Particularly, I think banning Iranians is foolish. However, Pakistanis and the Sunni Muslim 9-11 countries should have severe restrictions.

The question is where the truth sits, and right now I think the Trump administration sits fundamentally on the wrong side of it. The level of violence is higher, but it's not nearly so high that it justifies singling people out based solely on their religion. Certainly not people coming from countries whose emigrants haven't perpetrated an attack on US soil. Trump's efforts are based on paranoia and prejudice, not logic.

It sounds like we might be reaching some kind of middle ground here. Yes, countries with a demonstrable history of violence against American interests should be subject to tougher scrutiny. Not an outright ban like Trump would no doubt want, but screening that makes it clear that whoever's coming is peaceful and has a good reason for being here. And emphasize that this isn't a permanent policy... as in really impermanent, not Trump's shifty "I'd really like it to be an eternal ban but I'll pretend it's temporary" language.

 

[Jhhnn]

Are you REALLY making the claim that mass islamic migration hasn't caused huge problems across Europe?

Are you that dishonest? I suppose your narrative depends on your claim in order to work....

Are you really making the claim that we have the same problem in the US?

If not, why introduce it to the conversation?

 

[Blue_Max]

Are you really making the claim that we have the same problem in the US?

If not, why introduce it to the conversation?

Nice deflection. Way to avoid your own statement!

Deflection aside, problems exist in the USA and Canada. It's the most basic of logic that IF you bring in as many muslims as the European countries have, THEN you'll get the same result as every other nation that has done the same. SO, one would be wise to avoid cultural suicide and NOT do the same as those countries have.

...and then there's the progressives in the USA and Canada begging to bring in as many as possible to show the world how wonderfully progressive they are.
(Of course, the demand to take them in doesn't include any personal sacrifice like finances or housing them in their own home... only the demand OTHERS do that for them.)