Topic: 2016 Election

[Inkling]

NPR is discussing "excrement-posting" and I continue to hate everything.

[PatMan33]

Jesus... these people, they are setting themselves up for their own worst nightmare. They see these people mouthing off online and think it represents a real-world threat. This might not be entirely related.

The racists lost, people. They've got small corners of the internet to themselves and a few houses scattered across the continental United States. Let them have their free, hateful speech and let's get on with the rest of this stuff.

Or, you know, recognize that maybe they are engaging in the hyperbolic sort of discussion that my generation and those after it are known for.

Nah, let's just shut it down instead. Bottling this up and refusing to allow these people to have an outlet will work out just fine.

[Krakow Sam]

Pat it's not unreasonable for people to want to be vigilant. Yeah, there have been big strides made in fighting racism and other forms of prejudice in the last few decades but they could easily come back.

The recent wave of hatred targeted at Eastern Europeans following the Brexit vote is a pretty good indication that people will look to what they see and hear around them to validate beliefs they may not have been voicing or acting on previously. I'm not advocating censorship and I think that the ****storms of public shaming which arise on social media sometimes (like the woman who lost her job for making a joke about AIDS) is reprehensible, but I think it's up to everyone to be intolerant of intolerance (hur). Racists can have freedom on the internet, and we're all free to call them pieces of **** and make their lives difficult. These changes happen due to social pressure, and the pressure needs to be kept on, one way or another.

[Inkling]

I should clarify that NPR brought this up to explain Palmer Luckey's political activity and why everyone hates Oculus Rift now.

[PatMan33]

Racists can have freedom on the internet, and we're all free to call them pieces of **** and make their lives difficult.

I don't agree with the "make their lives difficult" part. That's you putting your nose where it doesn't belong. You're better off ignoring them, rather than hardening their stance and making them ornery.

Now, if they're causing trouble or being a disturbance, that is another issue and one for the authorities. Otherwise, I see no virtue in the public shaming of people that hold opinions privately and are otherwise not going out of their way to impose their beliefs. Going after those people because you somehow found out they have a poor opinion is just zealotry veiled behind cries of justice.

[Krakow Sam]

Well I am just refering to cases of people who can actually go out and do something with their bigoted beliefs. Aside from anything else attacking the "peaceful racists" will just make them harden their stance, like you said.

I'm just advocating a low tolerance for public displays of this kind of thing. I'm not sure where your line is for people holding opinions privately. If someone I worked with or was in a social situation with said something racist then I think in most cases I would be inclined to challenge them. There is a definite breed of person who thinks if people are silent when they say something hateful then those people are agreeing with them. This isn't a net police thing, just personal attitudes.

anyway, here's a thing:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Zxc4WuJ6Q" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Zxc4WuJ6Q</a>

[PatMan33]

wiggidy wiggidy

[Inkling]

SOON

[PatMan33]

Well that was that.

[Inkling]

Bigly.

[Krakow Sam]

Just watched a short highlight reel. I feel like in a formal debate setting Trump's tactics don't seem quite so effective and he comes over a bit pathetic. The bullying worked in the Republican debates where he shared the floor with about a million other people and could constantly interject but Hillary does a good job of not appearing phased by his horse**** and tends to call him out when he deflects the issue or starts talking about something completely different.

[PatMan33]

I thought they came out kind of even.

Neither of them had anything really great to say. They both had moments where they looked good, and moments where they looked bad. I don't think Trump was nearly as incoherent as some people are saying, frankly I just think they weren't listening. Then again, I've been listening to all of these speeches for over a year now, so I'm familiar with the way these people speak and phrase their thoughts.

On Hillary's side, I don't think she was anywhere near as strong as some outlets are spinning it today. She seemed tired most of the time and her energy didn't stack up against her opponent. That said, she definitely gave off more experience in this specific field; however, I'm not sure which one I think could handle people better. They're both mother****ers to have gotten where they are, so I think this category is a bit of a wash.

But Hillary once again came off very condescending, which is a major turn-off for me, but it's no secret that she's the most politically-qualified person on the stage. Trump was blustery and too unfocused, not good skills for the Presidency, but I still like some of his approach and what it does to the establishment. Trump had a few statements against Hillary that were absolutely devastating and she never really came up with much to match that, outside of the tired (lol) "you're lying" shtick.

The spin will determine the win.

My plan is to commit suicide on election day so I don't have to actually vote. Gonna put my insides on the outside for America!

[Inkling]

"Low energy" is a problem now?  It seemed to me that she was trying to appear as the calm and level headed option on the stage opposed to Trump.  And condescension is a perfectly reasonable reaction to a steady stream of bold faced lies and constant interruptions.

Trump would earn a massive amount of credit with me if he could ever admit that he's anything other than perfect.  On discriminatory business practices 40 years ago, on the war in Iraq, on the birther stuff, on taxes, on being insulting to women.  There's easy outs on most of these to set the issue aside and move on, like Clinton did with emails.  But no, he has to quadruple down.  I get that pretending to be perfect in everything he does is Trump's brand, and maybe it works for the average voter, the common clay of the New West.  But to me it makes him look vain, petty, and near pathological.

Meanwhile Clinton was a generic Democratic politician with generic democratic talking points and generic democratic flaws.

[Mr. Wizard]

"That makes me smart" 

[Rysworld]

To be fair both of them were fairly restrained it seemed like. Even Donald's typical bombastic manner of speech was toned down pretty significantly, aside from his occasional off-turn "wrong"s.

As someone who kind of checked out of the election a while ago, it seemed pretty boring.