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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nov 11, 1999
49,801
631
126
#51
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.
The essence of being a con artist is the ability to imprint an inaccurate image of oneself in the minds of the marks. The stronger the image, the more likely the marks will reject contrary information. They will quite literally block it out of their minds.
 

woolfe9998

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2013
7,393
225
136
#52
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
The person who was there and doing the reporting didn't ask the right question and therefore doesn't know the answer. At best, she's going off her gut feeling from observing her.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
46,793
271
126
#53
The person who was there and doing the reporting didn't ask the right question and therefore doesn't know the answer. At best, she's going off her gut feeling from observing her.
I know prosecutors and attorneys who would argue that asking the right question has the potential to yield better answers, but I know none who would trade honed intuition and experience for a list of questions and not observe those they are dealing with.

Could she be wishing injury? Potentially, but would listen to what the woman meant as much as any other factor and yes that can be determined by perceptive people who are paid for just that.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,232
84
126
#54
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.



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.
It's my current fascination with humanity and my own mind. It seems like without moralism it's impossible to come to a decision on anything and also axiomatic that moralism is always subjective. Your last sentence sums it up. It seems very easy because you being human have an inherent proclivity to see what's best based on your own moral code. And it's likely that few people you engage with have moral systems which are much different than your own.

My compromise is to try and evaluate axioms based on how they fit with actually coming to terms with the results it produces and tries to do better.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
46,793
271
126
#55
It's my current fascination with humanity and my own mind. It seems like without moralism it's impossible to come to a decision on anything and also axiomatic that moralism is always subjective. Your last sentence sums it up. It seems very easy because you being human have an inherent proclivity to see what's best based on your own moral code. And it's likely that few people you engage with have moral systems which are much different than your own.

My compromise is to try and evaluate axioms based on how they fit with actually coming to terms with the results it produces and tries to do better.
I have as a fundamental basis, something quite New Testament Christian, on which I form much of my worldview, "The Parable of the Good Samaritan". At the end, the question Jesus asked was who did good. Those listening responded, "the one who helped him". Jesus response- "Go and do likewise". I believe the concepts embodied are worth my embracing.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
63,299
212
126
#56
It's my current fascination with humanity and my own mind. It seems like without moralism it's impossible to come to a decision on anything and also axiomatic that moralism is always subjective. Your last sentence sums it up. It seems very easy because you being human have an inherent proclivity to see what's best based on your own moral code. And it's likely that few people you engage with have moral systems which are much different than your own.

My compromise is to try and evaluate axioms based on how they fit with actually coming to terms with the results it produces and tries to do better.
I have as a fundamental basis, something quite New Testament Christian, on which I form much of my worldview, "The Parable of the Good Samaritan". At the end, the question Jesus asked was who did good. Those listening responded, "the one who helped him". Jesus response- "Go and do likewise". I believe the concepts embodied are worth my embracing.
I believe we create God in our image and because we are all the same create thereby the absolute. We then express that universal by the notion that we have all been created in an image that mirrors His. In this way we create both the objective and the subjective. There is the God that is the moral absolute, and our subjective notion of who we he is by the degree that we have in fact achieved our own human-God potential.

If there were no truth and there were only the subjective there would be no moral suffering or guilt, and no longing for self improvement and love of self growth. Then, God is, when, I am.
 

greatnoob

Senior member
Jan 6, 2014
944
54
136
#57
Because one guy quoted in the OP equals everyone in a group?
Step away from the Nazis, you're starting to think like them.
What are you babbling on about? Nazis? You have seen his base at their rawest and you are still somehow deluded enough to not call them for exactly who they are: uneducated, low skilled xenophobes. It’s definitely not “just one person” and if you really do think that then you need to seriously wake up. Your irrelevant comment about Nazis was a good way to divert attention away from the same BS you were spewing in 2016. You are still wrong as you were then.

And yes, it's the economy stupid!
People wouldn't elect a man promising trade wars if they felt safe and secure. Scapegoats are borne for a reason, for the underlying issue of economic insecurity. So they fidget and they rage and they voted for a man that promised them everything. They were desperate for a con man, and they got one. Yes, there are various reasons, but the underlying victory was due to economic stress.
Thanks for repeating what I’ve already said. Now explain to us how Trumps base decided the destructive policies of the GOP benefited them and lessened their “economic anxiety.” It was obvious to most in 2016 that he was a conman and that his policies were practically nonexistent. Yet, despite being told so by Dems, Trumpanzees doubled down and voted for him ‘to spite the libs.’ Now they should own it proudly.
 

woolfe9998

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2013
7,393
225
136
#58
I know prosecutors and attorneys who would argue that asking the right question has the potential to yield better answers, but I know none who would trade honed intuition and experience for a list of questions and not observe those they are dealing with.

Could she be wishing injury? Potentially, but would listen to what the woman meant as much as any other factor and yes that can be determined by perceptive people who are paid for just that.
All I have to go off is her words. Trump is not hurting the right people. She must have someone in mind when she says that. If not, it's quite an odd turn of phrase.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
42,805
342
126
#59
Everyone knows that using the government to hurt other people is small government. Everyone knows that using the government to enforce your ethnopluralist agenda is totally libertarian.

Wake up, Sheeple!
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
46,793
271
126
#60
All I have to go off is her words. Trump is not hurting the right people. She must have someone in mind when she says that. If not, it's quite an odd turn of phrase.
ISIS?

Objectively I don't know and so I'm saying you are certainly wrong. As the writer seems to give an impression that the quote doesn't seem to match person interviewed, I'll give the benefit of the doubt. If I'm wrong then no real harm done.
 

Meghan54

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2009
8,425
87
126
#61
I know prosecutors and attorneys who would argue that asking the right question has the potential to yield better answers, but I know none who would trade honed intuition and experience for a list of questions and not observe those they are dealing with.

Could she be wishing injury? Potentially, but would listen to what the woman meant as much as any other factor and yes that can be determined by perceptive people who are paid for just that.

I completely understand the point you're trying to make, but in the follow up tweets from the reporter, she said the lady who was interviewed responded with this:

"I just don’t want people like me to be used as leverage over there in Washington," follow up tweet #4, btw, in the twitter thing you linked.....

So, what does "people like me" mean to you? I don't know if she was actually trying to assign malice, but the lady is singling out people like her, not people in general. Wonder why that was said in that way? And she never explained who people like her meant.....poors? Repubs? Conservatives? People living on the edge? It certainly wasn't meant to convey any and all people, otherwise she wouldn't have said "people like me."

I put a good portion of the confusion on the interview and its reponses on the reporter for failing to follow up with pointed questions about what the lady being interviewed said. I know interview skills are sometimes difficult to develop.....I was horrible at it myself....almost kept me from getting my jour. degree in '95. Thankfully, my focus was on feature-type and editorial writing (got published a few times while in school, so I wasn't too bad at that), not hard news interviews. I'd miss important follow up opportunities sometimes, so I do understand.

But to miss a second opportunity, as she did when the lady said "people like us" and didn't ask to define that description a bit more fully, sorry, I'm taking what the interviewee said at face value. She wanted some suffering from someone by voting for Trump, just not from people like her.
 
Nov 20, 1999
22,873
39
126
#62
Nov 4, 1999
15,919
188
126
#63
Sorry but that doesn't clarify anything at all, who should Trump be hurting? She literally doesn't answer that question. This guy is right:

Look, man - you can't hold Trump supporters accountable for their words and actions over the last two years. Time and time again they show pure contempt for people and ideas that are out of their circle. That is when they're not too busy mailing out bombs, shooting people or running over them with cars.
 
Nov 11, 1999
49,801
631
126
#64
ISIS?

Objectively I don't know and so I'm saying you are certainly wrong. As the writer seems to give an impression that the quote doesn't seem to match person interviewed, I'll give the benefit of the doubt. If I'm wrong then no real harm done.
Voting for Trump was a giant Fuck You! a great lashing out against "the Other". How the "Other" is defined varies by the individual, but they all wanted somebody to get fucked.

That's a hurtful thing by definition.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
3,474
93
126
#65
It's very possible she doesn't even know herself who she means. Just some unspecified 'other' who are responsible for everything that's going wrong in her world. Possibly 'liberals', maybe 'the elites', perhaps 'immigrants - who are also criminals', or 'the Chinese'...but maybe not as concrete as that, who knows?

Also, to be fair, 'hurt' is not an objectively-defined thing. If you take away the privileges of the privileged they will feel it as a hurt. Someone might declare that the bankers should pay for the financial crisis rather than the poor, and that paying might well be seen as a form of 'hurting'.

She probably sees whoever it is she has in mind as being more powerful or privileged than her, and hence doesn't see hurting them as a form of cruelty so much as just a levelling out or fighting back. She may be wildly mistaken in that judgement, but I don't think it suggests actual sadism.

Either way, anything that suggests Trump is upsetting his own base is fine by me.
 

thilanliyan

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2005
9,860
25
106
#66
All I have to go off is her words. Trump is not hurting the right people. She must have someone in mind when she says that. If not, it's quite an odd turn of phrase.
Going by the followup tweets, it sounds like she meant hurt the status quo politicians, but I agree, it's an odd choice of words. Either way, he is arguably more corrupt than the average politician (and it was pretty obvious before the election) so I'm not sure what she was expecting really.
 
Jun 17, 2005
10,842
125
126
#67
Now explain to us how Trumps base decided the destructive policies of the GOP benefited them and lessened their “economic anxiety.”
Because they have been trained to reject experts and to question anything that has any amount of ambiguity in it. Real answers are not sure things, they are all calculated risks. Then you get someone like Trump that offers simple and quick solutions and is willing to say '100% this will work I guarantee it', while their opponent is saying things like 'This will probably work' and 'this is our best bet'.

What it really comes down to is that when the people that voted for Trump see a complex problem their solution to it is to hit it with a stick.
 

SNC

Platinum Member
Jan 14, 2001
2,165
11
106
#68
Jun 23, 2004
26,855
206
126
#69
What are you babbling on about? Nazis? You have seen his base at their rawest and you are still somehow deluded enough to not call them for exactly who they are: uneducated, low skilled xenophobes.
Uneducated, low skilled, and you are denying their economic concerns? Really?

You see a single quote from a single person and it's supposed to speak for all 62 million voters, is that it? Moreover, even if that quote is accurate, there is a reason scapegoats exist. To balm over a deep seated wound. Want to take a wild guess what that is? What sort of concern gnaws at "Uneducated, low skilled" people?

Thanks for repeating what I’ve already said.
That is NOT what you said:

Do you all remember how we were told [...] that Trumpanzees were suffering from “economic anxiety,”
You directly dismissed the economic basis as laughable, and called us out for having argued it. That is what I am responding to. Because economics IS the basis for the average Trump voter.

Now explain to us how Trumps base decided the destructive policies of the GOP benefited them and...
Same reason anyone votes Republican. They do not understand economics. They believe in trickle down, bootstraps and all. If you hack and slash government enough, if you eliminate public money and public resources then they think they'll all be millionaires. All be rich like Trump. Because taxes of a single dollar is communism and must be stamped out for FREEDOM!

They think the "government man" is keeping them down. I personally know some poor Trumpanzes and all I hear about is bitching re taxes. How Hillary was going to take more money and more freedoms away.

What the hell were you expecting? That a few months / years of Trump and they'd learn some lesson? You said it yourself: uneducated, low skilled. Moreover, that's not how partisan politics works. The human mind attaches itself to an identity and it DOES NOT let go. The Ego creates delusions, a detachment from reality, to bolster the image of the identity (Trump) in the minds of supporters. Political party support is less a factual contest of reason and more of an emotional appeal to madness.

And you think you have some point, because they... would know better by now? So they must have some OTHER reason? Oh boy....
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
3,474
93
126
#70
What it really comes down to is that when the people that voted for Trump see a complex problem their solution to it is to hit it with a stick.
To be fair, that's usually my second option (after 'turn it off and on again') for problems with my router.

(It hasn't worked yet, but I think it's justified)
 
May 19, 2011
11,956
169
126
#71
What it really comes down to is that when the people that voted for Trump see a complex problem their solution to it is to hit it with a stick.
I disagree. Some people, when confronted with a complex problem with society choose (subconsciously, probably) to boil it down to a simple problem and then are surprised when a simple solution doesn't fix it.

Hence Brexiteers on the radio saying that the solution to Britain's Brexit problem is to march Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn to Buckingham Palace so the Queen can "knock their heads together and tell them to get on with it".

Churchill said it already, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.".
 

dawp

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2005
7,935
43
106
#72
considering how some of supporters acted towards protesters at the rallies it's not surprising a few will have that attitude.

there is no context for that quote so it does appear that she was talking about her fellow americans and not other foreign nationals.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
3,474
93
126
#73
Churchill said it already, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.".
The modern version would be "listening to phone-in programs on LBC".
 
Feb 4, 2009
18,859
278
126
#74
Yeah expecting someone to have professionally prepared TelePrompTer like speech for an interview is stupid.
Sounds like she just chose poor words. I don’t really think she wanted all non Trump voters to feel the pain
 
Nov 11, 1999
49,801
631
126
#75
Yeah expecting someone to have professionally prepared TelePrompTer like speech for an interview is stupid.
Sounds like she just chose poor words. I don’t really think she wanted all non Trump voters to feel the pain
I'm not sure she even knew herself. There's a deliberately nebulous concept of what constitutes "the Other" among White conservatives. But it's somebody who should be hurt back for what they're feeling. That's the key to how they justify blaming somebody else. They're just fighting back against perceived injustice. At least that's what Hannity, Rush, Coulter, Gingrich & a host of other highly paid right wing talking heads have told them for decades. They wouldn't get paid so much if they weren't really good at it.

The deceptions of top down class warfare are quite cruel & effective. The practitioners only intend to get better at it thru social media manipulation, big data, algorithms & whatever implements they can bring to bear on the public consciousness.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY