Trump supporter says the silent part out loud: Trump should be hurting people Trump supporters hate, not them

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
63,299
212
126
#26
That pretty well sums it up. Some people can't comprehend that everyone can be winners. There's always got to be a loser.
Personally, I find the notion that it is not enough to just win, but that others must also lose, to seem to make sense only in the absent of the notion that there is no truth to which to are subject to regardless of our awareness, that in the religeous sense, there is no book in which your sins are recorded for judgment day, or no such thing as suffering from living a life that lacks personal dignity.

This easily, too easily in my opinion, to the notion that one can be a winner and lack personal integrity, that one can live a life of lies consequence free. Rise is a belief, I believe, one can only have if you do not know yourself or what you really feel. The so called winners in our story are not winners at all, but those most deeply lost.

So it is not winners who are the source of also needing others to lose, but losers who don’t recognize themselves that feel that way.
 
Jun 23, 2004
26,855
206
126
#27
A federal prison here in Florida’s rural Panhandle lost much of its roof and fence during Hurricane Michael in October, forcing hundreds of inmates to relocate to a facility in Yazoo City, Miss., more than 400 miles away.

Since then, corrections officers have had to commute there to work, a seven-hour drive, for two-week stints. As of this week, thanks to the partial federal government shutdown, they will be doing it without pay — no paychecks and no reimbursement for gas, meals and laundry, expenses that can run hundreds of dollars per trip.
Why would they stay at a job that is abusive?
Why would they cling to something so damn painful?

And you dare tell me it's not economics. Think about their lives and their motivations. These are desperate people who need real social safety nets, who need love and compassion, to be cared for by a better society. Even if some of them rage, so what? We are human. We all rage and fuss and throw a fit at times. We are emotional, irrational, animals. We do bad things. But for our part, we can do better. We need to do better.

I see this topic, the story of these people, and I see a story filled with the failure of our humanity. I see a call for us to help them. Even if they don't know why, how, or who it should come from. I see a need to show them a better way. To lead them, and all of us, towards a better future.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
3,474
93
126
#28
I heard a reference to this cartoon on the radio this morning. We need to do away with this mentality. First step is acknowledging it.


When those you know 'succeed' they also very often change, and cease to be the people you knew. "Success" is frequently a form of emigration (sometimes literally). Phrases like "rise with your class not from your class" exist for a reason. Differential degrees of 'success' can fracture social bonds. Yugoslavia broke apart partly because different parts of the country diverged economically. Brexit seems to have some similar drivers.

There's a tension between solidarity and belonging on the one hand, and the expression of individual ego on the other.

Furthermore (and this is a seperate issue, really) life is more of a zero-sum game than is acknowledged. Again and again, someone's success does, in fact, harm others, because it leads to an imbalance of power, and power tends to be abused.

Dogs probably don't attach that much value to solidarity and community with cats, so the dilemma seems a bit simpler there!




I think if you reach to aid your thinking through suppression of another point of view (by various mechanisms), it is axiomatic that you have gone wrong somewhere.
I'm not sure what that means. Do you mean suppressing 'another point of view' within yourself, or supressing it in the world out there?
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,232
84
126
#29
I know that you have just expressed this in relation to another's post, but I at least seem to not be very good at figuring out how the specifics are intended. Could you perhaps make up some example out of thin air of this that would perhaps provide a second example?
Sure. Trump calling CNN fake news, etc. Religious groups banning the study of other religions or philosophies. People who denigrate the opinions of others because of their social status, bad grammar, political affiliation, etc. Scientific papers whose introduction is a concerted attack on the opinions which came before them. Those opposed to Trump who claim some superiority in their ideas on the basis that Trump is a serial liar, in the pocket of Putin, etc.

When you support your idea through making another idea or person invalid, it is a definite indicator that you are going wrong somewhere. It doesn't necessarily mean your idea itself is wrong. It might mean you're defending against some uncertainty, fear of losing social status, or a whole number of other reasons. But it isn't necessary to destroy or suppress another for you to be valid. When you succeed in doing so, it closes you off to the opportunity to challenge your own self which might lead to transformation or enrichment of the idea at hand, even if you are knowingly challenging yourself with something flawed.

For example, those that might attack the wall as a bad idea. Well, I've heard few actually analyze the wall itself rather than focus on Trump's and others' behavior. Logically, it seems to me that building a wall at the southern border would reduce illegal border crossings. There is potential merit to the idea. I still thing it is the wrong idea because when I have looked at data on the benefit and harm of those who enter the country on the border not through legit ports of entry, I don't see a compelling reason that this is bad for the country. Certainly not enough to warrant the cost. Beyond that, I think the cost of the wall in terms of promoting xenophobia and isolationism internationally themselves are undesired and more significant than any impact it might have on immigration. That's why I'm opposed to the wall. As for the parts of Trump's and other's behavior on the matter, this is a separate matter and I think is leading the country to worse and worse governance, greater division, and poor ethics. These are among the reasons I desire real action to stop Trump himself.

When those you know 'succeed' they also very often change, and cease to be the people you knew. "Success" is frequently a form of emigration (sometimes literally). Phrases like "rise with your class not from your class" exist for a reason. Differential degrees of 'success' can fracture social bonds. Yugoslavia broke apart partly because different parts of the country diverged economically. Brexit seems to have some similar drivers.

There's a tension between solidarity and belonging on the one hand, and the expression of individual ego on the other.

Furthermore (and this is a seperate issue, really) life is more of a zero-sum game than is acknowledged. Again and again, someone's success does, in fact, harm others, because it leads to an imbalance of power, and power tends to be abused.

Dogs probably don't attach that much value to solidarity and community with cats, so the dilemma seems a bit simpler there!
There's a lot to potentially unpack here. Personally I think the way I would like society to evolve would be in the direction of greater and greater cooperation instead of competition. Both aspects of course are worth acknowledging. There isn't an absolute wrong in desiring your success when it comes at the expense of others. I do think it imperative to evaluate, however, whether such a paradigm is actually in play. Because it is sometimes (perhaps often) the case should not be a reason to ignore the possibility of pursuing something mutually beneficial.

I'm not sure what that means. Do you mean suppressing 'another point of view' within yourself, or supressing it in the world out there?
Well aren't you a deep thinker now. :) I think most people would, if they recognized themselves suppressing something at all, describe the act as suppressing something external. But I think it might not be so simple. Very often (perhaps always) that's just a displacement of an internal conflict.
 
Oct 15, 1999
12,839
177
126
#30
I think if you reach to aid your thinking through suppression of another point of view (by various mechanisms), it is axiomatic that you have gone wrong somewhere.
WELCOME TO P&N!!!
 

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
4,412
149
126
#31
I'm sorry, but that would not work. That will lead to a war with this conservative country within a year.

They would simply set up their conservative utopia by giving everything to the rich and removing all safety, ecological, economical, and labor protections. Then when in a year the entire economy has collapsed and people are starving they would do the only other thing they believe in, taking it by force from those that have it.

This is inherent in their thinking, when they accuse Democrats of wanting to just give everything away for free by taking it from those that have it at gun point it is because that is the only other solution they can see, so when their policies fail that is what they will revert to. So, when their own policies fail and they are desperate it will never even occur to them to try something different, or ask for help, the only solution they will see is killing the people that have what they want and taking it.
Well building a wall around them isn't a terrible idea
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
63,299
212
126
#32
Sure. Trump calling CNN fake news, etc. Religious groups banning the study of other religions or philosophies. People who denigrate the opinions of others because of their social status, bad grammar, political affiliation, etc. Scientific papers whose introduction is a concerted attack on the opinions which came before them. Those opposed to Trump who claim some superiority in their ideas on the basis that Trump is a serial liar, in the pocket of Putin, etc.

When you support your idea through making another idea or person invalid, it is a definite indicator that you are going wrong somewhere. It doesn't necessarily mean your idea itself is wrong. It might mean you're defending against some uncertainty, fear of losing social status, or a whole number of other reasons. But it isn't necessary to destroy or suppress another for you to be valid. When you succeed in doing so, it closes you off to the opportunity to challenge your own self which might lead to transformation or enrichment of the idea at hand, even if you are knowingly challenging yourself with something flawed.

For example, those that might attack the wall as a bad idea. Well, I've heard few actually analyze the wall itself rather than focus on Trump's and others' behavior. Logically, it seems to me that building a wall at the southern border would reduce illegal border crossings. There is potential merit to the idea. I still thing it is the wrong idea because when I have looked at data on the benefit and harm of those who enter the country on the border not through legit ports of entry, I don't see a compelling reason that this is bad for the country. Certainly not enough to warrant the cost. Beyond that, I think the cost of the wall in terms of promoting xenophobia and isolationism internationally themselves are undesired and more significant than any impact it might have on immigration. That's why I'm opposed to the wall. As for the parts of Trump's and other's behavior on the matter, this is a separate matter and I think is leading the country to worse and worse governance, greater division, and poor ethics. These are among the reasons I desire real action to stop Trump himself.
Thank you.
 

Stokely

Senior member
Jun 5, 2017
576
68
96
#33
People are idiots. They look to politicians as some kind of superhero, and elect them based on soundbites and ludicrous "debates". Then, gee, I'm surprised when my hero, that has shown no inclination over decades to give one shit about anyone, isn't looking out for me. That's on you, moron.

We should be electing reasonable civil servants that know how to hire experts and are willing to compromise. Above all, they should be willing to tell the truth to us and hear the truth before making decisions. These kinds of people would never even make it out of the primary.

We get the government we deserve.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
59,479
817
126
#34
Really, welcome to politics in general. People react quite negatively when their political beliefs are challenged and have strong defense mechanisms around them. (Myself included) Delegizimizing opposing viewpoints as being categorically wrong is an easy shortcut! I remember first really recognizing this in myself in my 20’s when GWB said something or other and I realized that I decided he was wrong first and then tried to figure out why he was wrong second. Since then I’ve tried to recognize that in myself and be better about it. Sometimes I wish people on here would do that a little more, haha.

That being said, there are limits to this and I think some people try to abuse them. I’m perfectly comfortable with ignoring points made by people such as Trump and Alex Jones because they are literally professional liars. I don’t ignore them because they threaten my world view, I ignore them because of their long-established habits of lying to people. I see little reason to engage in good faith with people who will not return the favor.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
46,793
271
126
#35
When you support your idea through making another idea or person invalid, it is a definite indicator that you are going wrong somewhere.
Hypothetical:

I wish to kill you because you are the enemy. Jews are the enemy as are blacks and gays. LGBT people should not be protected from lynching laws because I have a valid idea. Nazi's had a valid idea, at least to them.

So given the above I can counter argue and many did back in the 20's and 30's. Martyrs have as well. You approach has merit in the fact that the kneejerk reaction without thought lead to this thread. The tweet I posted so far uncommented on explains there was no maliciousness on the part of the woman quoted by the writer of the article herself.

So the would-be serial killer, world destroyer "me", put the hypothetical into practice here. In certain religions, there is a concept of separating sin from sinners exists. Perhaps that is along the lines you are thinking?
 
Oct 15, 1999
12,839
177
126
#36
Really, welcome to politics in general. People react quite negatively when their political beliefs are challenged and have strong defense mechanisms around them. (Myself included) Delegizimizing opposing viewpoints as being categorically wrong is an easy shortcut! I remember first really recognizing this in myself in my 20’s when GWB said something or other and I realized that I decided he was wrong first and then tried to figure out why he was wrong second. Since then I’ve tried to recognize that in myself and be better about it. Sometimes I wish people on here would do that a little more, haha.

That being said, there are limits to this and I think some people try to abuse them. I’m perfectly comfortable with ignoring points made by people such as Trump and Alex Jones because they are literally professional liars. I don’t ignore them because they threaten my world view, I ignore them because of their long-established habits of lying to people. I see little reason to engage in good faith with people who will not return the favor.
It actually goes beyond that. Often the message is rejected because of the messenger. I was listening to a fellow talking about this on the radio the other day, and apparently the concept has been studied and is easily demonstrable.
It seems that one way or another, everything political circles back to tribalism.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
59,479
817
126
#37
It actually goes beyond that. Often the message is rejected because of the messenger. I was listening to a fellow talking about this on the radio the other day, and apparently the concept has been studied and is easily demonstrable.
It seems that one way or another, everything political circles back to tribalism.
I think tribalism is the single biggest issue, yes. The two easiest examples I can think of are the total transformation in the Republican Party on free trade and personal morality of the president. Before Trump Republicans were big free traders and big believers that the president had to be a moral person. As soon as their values conflicted with their tribe's standard bearer those opinions changed to no longer be in conflict. Liberals are certainly not immune to this but the empirical evidence shows their swings in opinion are considerably smaller than what's going on in conservatism right now. (I do not think this is surprising considering the left is a much looser coalition than the right and so ideological heresies are punished less)

As per my point though, sometimes it is not just okay but absolutely correct to reject the message based on the messenger. If a messenger has proven untrustworthy in the past they should be ignored in the future. If you don't you'll just spend your whole life trying to prove congress isn't filled with lizard people because you don't want to unfairly reject Alex Jones based on his reputation.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
59,479
817
126
#38
People are idiots. They look to politicians as some kind of superhero, and elect them based on soundbites and ludicrous "debates". Then, gee, I'm surprised when my hero, that has shown no inclination over decades to give one shit about anyone, isn't looking out for me. That's on you, moron.

We should be electing reasonable civil servants that know how to hire experts and are willing to compromise. Above all, they should be willing to tell the truth to us and hear the truth before making decisions. These kinds of people would never even make it out of the primary.

We get the government we deserve.
Yes, this so much. People don't want to admit it but the primary problem we face isn't with the politicians, it's with the voters.

Politicians respond to incentives - when the voters get less crazy so will the politicians.
 

woolfe9998

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2013
7,393
225
136
#39
Dig deeper people, even the writer of the piece doesn't buy what's being sold here.

Read the damn thing.


Stop automatically attributing evil without bothering to do a little reading.
I'm more in line with what most of the people said in the comment section there. No explanation has been given to what she meant by not "hurting the people he needs to be hurting." Maybe that's bad on the reporter - as some suggested - for not asking her what she meant by that. But she clearly meant that Trump should be hurting someone, and that whoever it is, it's not her.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,232
84
126
#40
Hypothetical:

I wish to kill you because you are the enemy. Jews are the enemy as are blacks and gays. LGBT people should not be protected from lynching laws because I have a valid idea. Nazi's had a valid idea, at least to them.

So given the above I can counter argue and many did back in the 20's and 30's. Martyrs have as well. You approach has merit in the fact that the kneejerk reaction without thought lead to this thread. The tweet I posted so far uncommented on explains there was no maliciousness on the part of the woman quoted by the writer of the article herself.

So the would-be serial killer, world destroyer "me", put the hypothetical into practice here. In certain religions, there is a concept of separating sin from sinners exists. Perhaps that is along the lines you are thinking?
Maybe. I'm not sure I fully understand your hypothetical though. I would like to emphasize that your idea might not be wrong even if you are doing something wrong in justifying it. For example, it seems likely that killing Nazis on the field of battle was probably the best action to take for the world.

I don't personally believe there is a part of humanity that doesn't exist for good reason. That said, because something is human it doesn't necessarily mean it is the best of humanity for that particular situation. Certainly society shapes how humans are apt to act, individuals are capable of change, and individuals are capable of changing society. So I feel it important that there be a dialog and process for which we strive to do better as a collective. Social behaviors (cooperative and antagonistic) are built into our DNA.

Really, though, my base argument is a moral one. I say that something is unequivocally wrong. I also believe that moral absolutes are wrong.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,232
84
126
#41
I'm more in line with what most of the people said in the comment section there. No explanation has been given to what she meant by not "hurting the people he needs to be hurting." Maybe that's bad on the reporter - as some suggested - for not asking her what she meant by that. But she clearly meant that Trump should be hurting someone, and that whoever it is, it's not her.
I think that's fair. I can certainly see it as an argument for fighting ISIS, using his power to leverage productive change in our trade practices with China, etc. There may well be things he can do which are worthy of support which cause harm to others with specific purpose in the setting of violation of important societal values (e.g. terrorism, intellectual property theft). This does not mandate a vindictive desire as part of a zero-sum approach. But I think if someone were to express the same thing absent any vindictive aim whatsoever they would use different words.
 
Nov 11, 1999
49,801
631
126
#42
Yes, this so much. People don't want to admit it but the primary problem we face isn't with the politicians, it's with the voters.

Politicians respond to incentives - when the voters get less crazy so will the politicians.
Except when that craziness is the result of decades of well funded propaganda, disinformation & exploitation. It's not just about politicians per se but about the think tanks, & media manipulators/ personalities backing them up.

I mean, the election of Trump is really, really fucking crazy & people didn't get that way on their own. They've been led to it in a myriad of ways. Now that they have been they can't admit to having been conned.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
46,793
271
126
#43
I'm more in line with what most of the people said in the comment section there. No explanation has been given to what she meant by not "hurting the people he needs to be hurting." Maybe that's bad on the reporter - as some suggested - for not asking her what she meant by that. But she clearly meant that Trump should be hurting someone, and that whoever it is, it's not her.
I'll go with the woman who was interviewing and wrote the article, the one who said there was no malice. The writer doesn't have a bone to fight over here. If she had indicated otherwise, didn't make sure that the woman interviewed would not be accused of wishing harm she would hardly have followed it up in her tweet about the article and woman.

I'll go with the person who was there and doing the reporting
 
Jun 17, 2005
10,842
125
126
#44
People are idiots. They look to politicians as some kind of superhero, and elect them based on soundbites and ludicrous "debates". Then, gee, I'm surprised when my hero, that has shown no inclination over decades to give one shit about anyone, isn't looking out for me. That's on you, moron.

We should be electing reasonable civil servants that know how to hire experts and are willing to compromise. Above all, they should be willing to tell the truth to us and hear the truth before making decisions. These kinds of people would never even make it out of the primary.

We get the government we deserve.
One of the biggest problems in politics is that, especially for the presidency, actually wanting the job is good evidence that they are not fit to do it.
 
Nov 11, 1999
49,801
631
126
#45
One of the biggest problems in politics is that, especially for the presidency, actually wanting the job is good evidence that they are not fit to do it.
Which is an attack on the system of govt we've had since 1790. Just because we currently have a scumbag as Prez doesn't mean they've all been scumbags or will be in the future.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
46,793
271
126
#46
For example, it seems likely that killing Nazis on the field of battle was probably the best action to take for the world.
Here we come to perspective and morality. Did the Nazi's get up every morning with the idea that they are evil? That what they were doing was not for "the greater good" *as they saw it*? I would argue that from their perspective they were doing some kind of "good", which leads to others disabusing others of that idea, that it is invalid in *our* morality. We therefore have a competition between worldviews where "the winner write history" and consequently the morality of the past.

Really, though, my base argument is a moral one. I say that something is unequivocally wrong. I also believe that moral absolutes are wrong.
I am a flawed being with imperfect knowledge and no objective, absolute sense of what reality deems to be right and wrong. That said I enforce my sense of "rightness" upon myself from all the external metrics I can examine and will do so by force if necessary. I will not debate a rapist in the act, I will stop it. In the end we determine what is acceptable and choose to go along with the masses or not. If we were born into Nazi Germany would be be fighting against Hitler, or climbing up on a table and singing the praises of Germany under the Nazis?

I wonder.

In any event in this place and time, I choose the axioms that seem best.
 
Jul 12, 2006
92,224
657
136
#47
If one were to make a wild guess, one would think that the type of people that support Trump really don't understand a fucking thing about Trump.
 
Jul 12, 2006
92,224
657
136
#48
I heard a reference to this cartoon on the radio this morning. We need to do away with this mentality. First step is acknowledging it.

yup, I heard the same reference, too. It was in one of the more recent NYer's, but maybe the issue that reprinted articles and cartoons from the past 60 or so years.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
46,793
271
126
#49
yup, I heard the same reference, too. It was in one of the more recent NYer's, but maybe the issue that reprinted articles and cartoons from the past 60 or so years.
If everyone were equal then no one could look down upon another. We surely can't have that in today's society, or so it seems.
 
Oct 18, 2013
11,179
158
126
#50
Yes, this so much. People don't want to admit it but the primary problem we face isn't with the politicians, it's with the voters.

Politicians respond to incentives - when the voters get less crazy so will the politicians.
But, does that not put the onus on people, many of which are marginalized?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY