The disenfranchised myth

[Boosted87]

I get where you are coming from, but at some point, their beliefs need to be attacked, or better yet, just disassociated with. The Q anon type stuff I think needs to be ridiculed for being what it is, which is a delusional cult. I don't think we get anywhere by pretending this is all normal, I think all we do is make it even more acceptable. Now I do agree there is a difference in someone who just has different mainstream Republican/Libertarian political views, and the more radical people, so I am not talking about all Republicans or even Trump supporters. But I do think Q anon, Proud Boys etc, are beyond what you are talking about. How do you even pretend to have a conversation with someone who wears a Camp Aushwitz shirt? How do you reason with someone who thinks because you support Democrats, that you are a pedophile?

Oh yea I agree completely. We don't need to reach the extremes, but what we can't do is lump everyone together. When we say things like "Trump supporters are just a bunch of racists" or similar, we're making out problems worse.

What happens when someone knows Trump is trouble but they're convinced Democrats are going to destroy our country? They're wrong - but they're not unreachable. But when we say things like "Trump supporters are bunch of triggered racists" that lumps them in.

These guys need a name that differentiates them in some way. MAGA Extremists. MAGA Radicals. I dunno.

 

[Cubs79]

How does it affect you if someone believes in qanon?

Are you kidding me? Missed the news I take it?

And also, stop with this false equivalency nonsense. If you want to talk about genders, or anything else like it, start a thread, considering it is a completely different topic than what we are talking about.

 

[Crazyhole]

Oh yea I agree completely. We don't need to reach the extremes, but what we can't do is lump everyone together. When we say things like "Trump supporters are just a bunch of racists" or similar, we're making out problems worse.

What happens when someone knows Trump is trouble but they're convinced Democrats are going to destroy our country? They're wrong - but they're not unreachable. But when we say things like "Trump supporters are bunch of triggered racists" that lumps them in.

These guys need a name that differentiates them in some way. MAGA Extremists. MAGA Radicals. I dunno.

I dont want to take you out of context, but it sounds like what you are saying is that because somebody believes (x) while the vast majority don't, they are clearly wrong. Its a good thing that you're more focused on similarities than differences, but what about the occasions that the small minority is actually right?

 

[Crazyhole]

Are you kidding me? Missed the news I take it?

And also, stop with this false equivalency nonsense. If you want to talk about genders, or anything else like it, start a thread, considering it is a completely different topic than what we are talking about.

Once again, cubs being cubs. You are ok with mocking something you don't agree with if it goes beyond all credibility, but get defensive when you're on the wrong side of that credibility.

 

[Cubs79]

Oh yea I agree completely. We don't need to reach the extremes, but what we can't do is lump everyone together. When we say things like "Trump supporters are just a bunch of racists" or similar, we're making out problems worse.

What happens when someone knows Trump is trouble but they're convinced Democrats are going to destroy our country? They're wrong - but they're not unreachable. But when we say things like "Trump supporters are bunch of triggered racists" that lumps them in.

These guys need a name that differentiates them in some way. MAGA Extremists. MAGA Radicals. I dunno.

I agree. I am originally from Ky, so I know plenty of people who voted Trump who I don't think are bad people in the slightest. The thing is, I am not really concerned about them. People who vote Republican for financial reasons, or any "normal" reason, are going to get over Trump pretty quickly, and I have never really had any issues having conversations with them. It is the people who have made Trump a demagogue who are the problem, and that is an issue, because their views just aren't based in reality. I think the only way to reach those types of people might be to just not associate with them in life. Not do business with them, don't hangout with them, etc.

 

[Cubs79]

Once again, cubs being cubs. You are ok with mocking something you don't agree with if it goes beyond all credibility, but get defensive when you're on the wrong side of that credibility.

I am not defensive, I am asking you to quit hijacking a thread, which is all you are doing and you know it. You do it all time and you do it intentionally.

 

[DaShuckster]

I dont want to take you out of context, but it sounds like what you are saying is that because somebody believes (x) while the vast majority don't, they are clearly wrong. Its a good thing that you're more focused on similarities than differences, but what about the occasions that the small minority is actually right?

When the majority's belief (i.e. we had a free and fair election last November) is based on a series of indisputable facts and the minority (x) 'belief' is based on nothing, what are we really doing here?

The reason we had five dead during a riot of the Capitol is that a group of people got stirred up to riot based on nothing. If we cannot operate based on agreed upon facts, our society quickly falls apart.

 

[Crazyhole]

When the majority's belief (i.e. we had a free and fair election last November) is based on a series of indisputable facts and the minority (x) 'belief' is based on nothing, what are we really doing here?

The reason we had five dead during a riot of the Capitol is that a group of people got stirred up to riot based on nothing. If we cannot operate based on agreed upon facts, our society quickly falls apart.

Don't limit it to just one singular topic. Sure, most of the time the majority is probably correct, but not always.

 

[Crazyhole]

I am not defensive, I am asking you to quit hijacking a thread, which is all you are doing and you know it. You do it all time and you do it intentionally.

Does hijacking a thread include bringing up qanon when it hadn't been brought up yet and was irrelevant to the topic?

 

[Cubs79]

Does hijacking a thread include bringing up qanon when it hadn't been brought up yet and was irrelevant to the topic?

Q anon is not irrelevant to the topic. Regardless, I don't care about genders one way or the other because it doesn't affect me at all, so this my last post about it. Nobody else in this thread cares about genders but you, start a different thread.

 

[Crazyhole]

Q anon is not irrelevant to the topic. Regardless, I don't care about genders one way or the other because it doesn't affect me at all, so this my last post about it. Nobody else in this thread cares about genders but you, start a thread.

And qanon hasn't affected you either.

 

[Cubs79]

And qanon hasn't affected you either.

Cool. Thanks for the great discussion.

 

[DaShuckster]

And qanon hasn't affected you either.

Trump Viking, one of the insurrectionists who got arrested this week in Arizona is a Qanon leader. So were others the authorities have arrested so I guess it’s not just a ‘harmless’ group of nut jobs.

 

[Crazyhole]

Trump Viking, one of the insurrectionists who got arrested this week in Arizona is a Qanon leader. So were others the authorities have arrested so I guess it’s not just a ‘harmless’ group of nut jobs.

How did they affect you?

 

[DaShuckster]

How did they affect you?

They attacked my nation’s Capitol!!!

 

[Trigeek]

Q anon is not irrelevant to the topic. Regardless, I don't care about genders one way or the other because it doesn't affect me at all, so this my last post about it. Nobody else in this thread cares about genders but you, start a different thread.

Well it was good while it lasted.

 

[Crazyhole]

They attacked my nation’s Capitol!!!

Was your life different afterwards?

 

[Crazyhole]

Well it was good while it lasted.

What was good while it lasted?

 

[Boosted87]

I dont want to take you out of context, but it sounds like what you are saying is that because somebody believes (x) while the vast majority don't, they are clearly wrong. Its a good thing that you're more focused on similarities than differences, but what about the occasions that the small minority is actually right?

I get what you're saying here. I do believe this movement Trump has unleashed is an existential threat to democracy. Right wing nationalist movements have a track record of this sort of thing. But how can I be so sure I'm right and the other guys are wrong? I think that's your question.

I saw a post on reddit yesterday that was basically asking for ex flat-earthers to explain what tipped them off to reality. Here's a response I thought was interesting:

Not me, but got a flat Earther to question his beliefs (and hopefully critically analyze them) by giving him the proof he asked for, to which he responded "mainstream science and media are lies". I asked why he asked for proof if he could just disregard it as lies either way, then told him that since he required no proof (or evidence against) to believe something, it made him the easiest person to deceive and that it seemed pretty sheep-like to me. He deleted all of his flat earth comments and hasn't posted about it since.​

​

Straight up, you could re-write this sentence by replacing the 2 flat earth references with MAGA extremist references and not need to change a single other word.

In normal times, that type of mentality is limited to the fringes of left and right. Currently, the fringe thinking on the right is permeating mainstream Republican thinking. I just saw an article where a state senator legimately considered a candidate for VA governor said she still thinks there's a chance Trump is sworn in on Jan 20th (!).

Over 150 Republicans members of the house voted to THROW OUT THE VOTES of other states. We just broke our streak of 250+ years with a peaceful transfer of power as the capitol building was mobbed.

So when you ask me how I'm sure I'm right, I can't help but point to flat earthers. The stop-the-steal mob is at that level. This was akin to Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz saying "look, my citizens are concerned the earth might be flat - and those are legitimate concerns and should be investigated" instead of telling them the truth. These are weird times, but to a rational person schooled in history without an agenda, it's painfully obvious who's on the right side here.

 

[Crazyhole]

I get what you're saying here. I do believe this movement Trump has unleashed is an existential threat to democracy. Right wing nationalist movements have a track record of this sort of thing. But how can I be so sure I'm right and the other guys are wrong? I think that's your question.

I saw a post on reddit yesterday that was basically asking for ex flat-earthers to explain what tipped them off to reality. Here's a response I thought was interesting:

Not me, but got a flat Earther to question his beliefs (and hopefully critically analyze them) by giving him the proof he asked for, to which he responded "mainstream science and media are lies". I asked why he asked for proof if he could just disregard it as lies either way, then told him that since he required no proof (or evidence against) to believe something, it made him the easiest person to deceive and that it seemed pretty sheep-like to me. He deleted all of his flat earth comments and hasn't posted about it since.​

​

Straight up, you could re-write this sentence by replacing the 2 flat earth references with MAGA extremist references and not need to change a single other word.

In normal times, that type of mentality is limited to the fringes of left and right. Currently, the fringe thinking on the right is permeating mainstream Republican thinking. I just saw an article where a state senator legimately considered a candidate for VA governor said she still thinks there's a chance Trump is sworn in on Jan 20th (!).

Over 150 Republicans members of the house voted to THROW OUT THE VOTES of other states. We just broke our streak of 250+ years with a peaceful transfer of power as the capitol building was mobbed.

So when you ask me how I'm sure I'm right, I can't help but point to flat earthers. The stop-the-steal mob is at that level. This was akin to Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz saying "look, my citizens are concerned the earth might be flat - and those are legitimate concerns and should be investigated" instead of telling them the truth. These are weird times, but to a rational person schooled in history without an agenda, it's painfully obvious who's on the right side here.

The flat earth comparison cuts both ways though. 500 years ago, the vast majority still believed the earth was flat. Even after Columbus returned most people didn't believe the earth is round.

 

[DaShuckster]

The flat earth comparison cuts both ways though. 500 years ago, the vast majority still believed the earth was flat. Even after Columbus returned most people didn't believe the earth is round.

Cuts both ways? It died naturally (for 99.9% of the population) once it was scientifically disproven.

 

[DaShuckster]

Here's a response I thought was interesting:

Not me, but got a flat Earther to question his beliefs (and hopefully critically analyze them) by giving him the proof he asked for, to which he responded "mainstream science and media are lies". I asked why he asked for proof if he could just disregard it as lies either way, then told him that since he required no proof (or evidence against) to believe something, it made him the easiest person to deceive and that it seemed pretty sheep-like to me. He deleted all of his flat earth comments and hasn't posted about it since.​

This describes most of the 'debates' we've had on this board. You name it: whether it flat earthers or 'its just the sniffles' crowd, or the 'Stop the Steal'ers, they simply disregard all proof that refutes their position.

 

[Crazyhole]

Cuts both ways? It died naturally (for 99.9% of the population) once it was scientifically disproven.

The point is that at one time, round earth was just a conspiracy theory.

 

[Crazyhole]

This describes most of the 'debates' we've had on this board. You name it: whether it flat earthers or 'its just the sniffles' crowd, or the 'Stop the Steal'ers, they simply disregard all proof that refutes their position.

Or like Jacob Blake having a knife on him.

 

[Boosted87]

The flat earth comparison cuts both ways though. 500 years ago, the vast majority still believed the earth was flat. Even after Columbus returned most people didn't believe the earth is round.

I don't get how you relate it that way. Evidence is one side. Ignorance and myth is on the other. This is human history in a nutshell. Galileo said "hey look at this data turns out the Earth isn't the center of solar system" and the Catholic Inquisition was like "nah time to go to jail."

The opinions of the ignorant masses is irrelevant to reality. Just because Trump's demagoguery convinced 80% of Republicans the election was stolen, doesn't change the reality that it wasn't, and it discredits the pockets of credible irregularities that may actually exist.

Because of his demagoguery, it's going to be hard for legitimate skepticism on election integrity to be taken seriously going forward. Boy who cried wolf disease. It's like a legitimate UFO researcher being lumped in with people convinced Aliens have underground bases. If Trump actually cared about election integrity and the long term health of the US, he'd make different choices. But he only cares about himself.

 

[Boosted87]

The point is that at one time, round earth was just a conspiracy theory.

Hold up. How do you define conspiracy theory? Seems you're saying any un-proven minority held belief is a conspiracy theory. Einstein's Theory of Relativity did not start out as Einstein's Conspiracy Theory of Relativity only to graduate from Conspiracy once more people believed it.

 

[Crazyhole]

Hold up. How do you define conspiracy theory? Seems you're saying any un-proven minority held belief is a conspiracy theory. Einstein's Theory of Relativity did not start out as Einstein's Conspiracy Theory of Relativity only to graduate from Conspiracy once more people believed it.

I suppose I would define it as something that is considered a lie intended to create some sort of personal benefit.

 

[DaShuckster]

The point is that at one time, round earth was just a conspiracy theory.

In a democratic society, if there is a serious charge -- particularly one so incredibly consequential that it could conceivably overturn a Presidential election -- you need to present proof.

Where is the monumental evidence that proves the election was rigged?

In a democratic society, at SOME point, people have to admit the bullshit and move on. When politicians continue to parrot Trump's baseless claims, they are as culpable as he is in inciting violence.

 

[Crazyhole]

In a democratic society, if there is a serious charge -- particularly one so incredibly consequential that it could conceivably overturn a Presidential election -- you need to present proof.

Where is the monumental evidence that proves the election was rigged?

In a democratic society, at SOME point, people have to admit the bullshit and move on. When politicians continue to parrot Trump's baseless claims, they are as culpable as he is in inciting violence.

Agreed. At some point, yes. The issue here is that in this case, you dismissed the idea out of hand before anyone had the opportunity to provide evidence. You can't say you were objective about it because you went into it with a bias. Another example would be the Jessie Smollet deal with FC. He mocked me incessantly for simply doubting the whole thing. Well, it turned out that going into that one objectively was a wise move.

 

[DaShuckster]

Agreed. At some point, yes. The issue here is that in this case, you dismissed the idea out of hand before anyone had the opportunity to provide evidence. You can't say you were objective about it because you went into it with a bias.

The issue isn't ME, the issue here is Trump's refusal to accept his defeat.

Our judicial process provided Trump the right to prove his claims of a rigged election in court -- courts led by many of his own appointees. They were all routinely dismissed. Were these GOP judges 'biased?'

He then attempted to use state legislators and other state officials to overturn the will of the people. Fortunately, those individuals were people of integrity who stood up to him.

You mentioned Smollet. There were people who believed his BS initially. Then what happened? The evidence mounted that it was all a pack of lies and his support crumbled. But using the Smollet analogy with Trump, it would be like his supporters continuing to support his outlandish claims despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

[Poolside Knight]

acknowledging this is needed

 

[Crazyhole]

The issue isn't ME, the issue here is Trump's refusal to accept his defeat.

Our judicial process provided Trump the right to prove his claims of a rigged election in court -- courts led by many of his own appointees. They were all routinely dismissed. Were these GOP judges 'biased?'

He then attempted to use state legislators and other state officials to overturn the will of the people. Fortunately, those individuals were people of integrity who stood up to him.

You mentioned Smollet. There were people who believed his BS initially. Then what happened? The evidence mounted that it was all a pack of lies and his support crumbled. But using the Smollet analogy with Trump, it would be like his supporters continuing to support his outlandish claims despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I'm not obsessed with Trump so I don't care what he believed. We are talking about whether its wise to ridicule someone for believing something you disagree with.

 

[DaShuckster]

I'm not obsessed with Trump so I don't care what he believed. We are talking about whether its wise to ridicule someone for believing something you disagree with.

When it threatens our democracy? HELL YES!

 

[Crazyhole]

When it threatens our democracy? HELL YES!

If there had been voter fraud, would that be less of a threat?

 

[Knight In TN]

You nailed it. This is why the country has become so divisive.

The day after the attack on the Capitol I listened to Rush Limbaugh because I was curious what his take would be. Would he 'fess up?Naturally, I learned that Trump supporters could relax because it had to be the work of Antifa because the Right would NEVER resort to violence. I sat in my car realizing that half the country was listening -- and believing -- his bullshit.

Nooooooo... see THIS is the problem. You sat in your car and made assumptions about people.

You are ascribing Rush’s radio comments (and some of his more controversial ones at that) to be the actual beliefs of half the country. He doesn’t have half the country - or anything close to that number - listening to him.

When you assume that “the other side” or “half the country” actually believes the outrageous things that get said on talk radio, you’re making a caricature of them.

Talk radio is about being provocative, controversial, and most importantly entertaining. To think that his audience 1) believes everything he says and 2) is a representative profile of all 74.2 million people who voted for Donald Trump is absurd.

I don’t assume that the more extreme members of the radical left speak for half of the country. There’s a lot more nuance to the political landscape in the United States than that. Shame on you for contributing to the idea that you can listen to one man try to entertain on a radio show and find out what millions of people think.

Ask reasonable people what they think in a non-judgmental way and really listen to what they say. You might learn something, or at least be able to respect someone with whom you disagree.

 

[DaShuckster]

Ask reasonable people what they think in a non-judgmental way and really listen to what they say. You might learn something, or at least be able to respect someone with whom you disagree.

I have. Even after a g'damned attack on the Capitol, they tell me matter-of-factly with a straight face that the election was 'rigged.' Soooo...what am I supposed to 'assume' from that?

see THIS is the problem. You sat in your car and made assumptions about people. ... When you assume that “the other side” or “half the country” actually believes the outrageous things that get said on talk radio, you’re making a caricature of them.

I get that part of the anger inside Trump's base is the ridicule they feel from 'those smartass elitist snobs' who make fun of them.

I was ready to assign that to a small, vocal minority in our country...until I saw that over 72 million people still voted for Trump last November. How does one rationally explain that phenomenon? I am unwilling to believe that nearly half the country represent the 'caricature' that we have that all Trumpets are the nutjobs we saw attacking the Capitol.

So what explains it? It's got to be the crazyass 'news sources' they are depending upon for their understanding of the world. YES, people like Rushbo and Hannity are entertainers. Unfortunately, not many of their viewers understand that fact.

 

[Crazyhole]

I have. Even after a g'damned attack on the Capitol, they tell me matter-of-factly with a straight face that the election was 'rigged.' Soooo...what am I supposed to 'assume' from that?
I get that part of the anger inside Trump's base is the ridicule they feel from 'those smartass elitist snobs' who make fun of them.

I was ready to assign that to a small, vocal minority in our country...until I saw that over 72 million people still voted for Trump last November. How does one rationally explain that phenomenon? I am unwilling to believe that nearly half the country represent the 'caricature' that we have that all Trumpets are the nutjobs we saw attacking the Capitol.

So what explains it? It's got to be the crazyass 'news sources' they are depending upon for their understanding of the world. YES, people like Rushbo and Hannity are entertainers. Unfortunately, not many of their viewers understand that fact.

Congrats. You just called 72 million people stupid. Its no wonder you don't understand the problem.

 

[DaShuckster]

Congrats. You just called 72 million people stupid. Its no wonder you don't understand the problem.

Reading comprehension is an underrated quality.

 

[Boosted87]

Nooooooo... see THIS is the problem. You sat in your car and made assumptions about people.

You are ascribing Rush’s radio comments (and some of his more controversial ones at that) to be the actual beliefs of half the country. He doesn’t have half the country - or anything close to that number - listening to him.

When you assume that “the other side” or “half the country” actually believes the outrageous things that get said on talk radio, you’re making a caricature of them.

Talk radio is about being provocative, controversial, and most importantly entertaining. To think that his audience 1) believes everything he says and 2) is a representative profile of all 74.2 million people who voted for Donald Trump is absurd.

I don’t assume that the more extreme members of the radical left speak for half of the country. There’s a lot more nuance to the political landscape in the United States than that. Shame on you for contributing to the idea that you can listen to one man try to entertain on a radio show and find out what millions of people think.

Ask reasonable people what they think in a non-judgmental way and really listen to what they say. You might learn something, or at least be able to respect someone with whom you disagree.

I basically agree with everything you said here. But we're past the point of the right not taking ownership of the problem.

In a post 9/11 world, peaceful Muslims had a problem. Their religion was actively being weaponized by extremists for political ends. There could be no room for "sympathizers" in the peaceful ranks. But who's job was that? Who's responsibility? Does the local Imam turn a blind eye to the youth he sees at risk for radicalization? Or does he actively try to be part of the solution? It's easy to see how the events of 9/11 could dramatically change someone's sense of self-responsibility within a community.

So in my opinion, January 6th changes things. Prior to that, you could argue that despite the rhetoric, Trump was not the threat the left says he is. That all their fears were exaggerated. That's not the case anymore. The right needs to own this. Radicalized political violence doesn't need 74 million people to terrorize this country. If January 6th doesn't wake us up then it's going to get worse.

 

[Crazyhole]

Reading comprehension is an underrated quality.

Lol. You missed the point.