oldmanjay

I'm not sure I understand you clearly. Are you saying that Donald Trump is guilty because of who supported him, and that's not invoking guilt by association?

Threats are illegal, and that hasn't changed. If that is truly all you are talking about, then thank you for clarifying because that was not at all evident.

I began believing trump had a legitimate shot to win the election over a year ago, when his candidacy was mainly taken as a joke. I noted to people who didn't believe me that the essential dishonesty of the media was a key element in what they assured me could not happen. Most assurances were driven by media-fed opinions I tried to warn them not to trust.

I also learned pretty early on that saying I believed he had a shot would anger people, and often lead to accusations of many, many PC sins such as racism on my part. This did not convince me I was wrong.

I have some measure of hope that people are going to learn the right lessons this time. People are still too deep in the grief process for me to judge it clearly, but hope is enough for now.

I'm not doing any gymnastics. I suspect you believe me to be a trump supporter, but I'm more like a grief counselor helping people like you work through the stages by keeping you grounded in reality.

You said

> Your country, by electing someone with an unpleasant set of views on race/religion, has implicitly given free reign to people with even more unpleasant views on those to do whatever they want and not fear repercussions because... after all, they've been told they're in the majority now.

If you want these people to not feel free to express their opinions then you want some other thing. Feel free to explain what, if I misconstrued.

Yes, if you imply that Donald trump is guilty of actions those associated with him have taken, you are using guilt by association. It's definitional!

I understand that you feel strongly about this, but it's not illegal to hate someone. If there are people being threatened or harmed, we do have police and the general rule of law to handle those things. It's not like trump runs the government now!

Despite emotional currents we are mostly peaceful domestically. Our institutions are still democratic in nature. Trump has to share power with the other pillars of government.

We are very, very far from anything resembling naziism. No amount of hatred expressed in speech is equivalent. Action is required.

I'm not taking issue with the substance of your argument. The form bothers me. You've worked your way through every possible guilt-by-association tactic there is. It's bush league argumentation.

It seems that you want people with opinions you find odious to be unhappy all the time and accept that as their lot in life. If I've understood that correctly, by what mechanism do you propose this work?

I am happy to have offended you. Your thinking doesn't deserve to sit tranquilly.

This sort of emotional nibbling around the edges of something to cause resonance is one of my least favorite forms of persuasion. It's so hamhanded.

Okay, let's stipulate that anyone with an opinion that differs from yours has no moral compass. What next? Do we disenfranchise them? Kill them? Sterilize them and their children and wait it out?

Your attitude is disgusting on a number of levels, but my favorite one is how it leads to nothing useful at all.

His ideal form of government is minimal enough that voting is superfluous. That you infer nefarious motive speaks not at all to what was actually implied.

Save your call for solidarity for people who aren't in an industry where exceptional individual achievement matters this much. I'm not interested in being saddled like a horse to carry a bunch of can't-dos who should be encouraged to find something they aren't dragging down. Solidarity is for line workers who want to be lazy.

Well I appreciate your explanation of your thoughts, although my feelings are that it's far to early to be so dismissive of something people haven't really used yet.

I'll grant it may turn out to be a useless bauble, but I'm old enough to remember people saying that about the mouse, too.

They did add an OLED touch bar that no other laptop has, to my knowledge. Does that not count? Why not?

Your argument is orthogonal to my point, so I don't really have a response to it. Also I'm not sure if you're calling me out, or some set of abstract Republicans, but I'm not really here to do battle in any case, so I don't have any beliefs for the stack.

Whether you think it's a big deal or not isn't really the point - after all, do you not believe that, a person who expresses some racist belief, even a true one, about (for instance) a Mexican person feels just as justified in the belief?

You can argue about who is actually justified for feeling what, but crucially, the only impact it ends up having is to further embed the feelings. In other words, it is not a solution to these problems, it is a cause.

I'm ever curious about this topic - what do you define as innovation?

I can't tell with this particular topic - are you making a bad joke or do you legitimately feel this sort of smug behavior would be helpful?

Do you truthfully believe that you can trivialize and dismiss something you seemingly don't understand and be correct at the same time? That doesn't speak well for the strength of logic underlying your opinions.

No attempt at political correctness will ever impact the freedom to believe anything at all, hateful, loving, or totally rational. That freedom is fundamental to being human. It is not granted by any organization and cannot be revoked using any known mechanism, no matter what your opinion on those thoughts.

We don't need code to believe and express that we are free to say hateful things. Even those on the left believe they are free to say hateful things about people on the right. They've simply fooled themselves into believing that feeling justified about that hate means that they aren't being hateful.

Here's a spoiler alert for being human: everyone feels that exact same justification. It is literally meaningless.

To me, this means Fisher's principle belies the notion that males are a cost borne by a species.

> is on the record saying he sexually assaults women

This is a good thing to touch on, because it very handily demonstrates an area where differing opinions became a crux upon which the election turned. Trump was "on the record" joking around in a manner that, despite Clintonian assertion otherwise, is not at all uncommon, amongst men and women. It is, also despite assertion, not universally accepted that offensive words are equivalent to harmful actions. For instance, although I did not vote for Trump, I will never accept this precept as valid.

The racism and sexism are sort of victims of their own overuse. I've said, unto exhaustion, that fighting sexism with sexism and racism with racism is equivalent to fighting a fire with fuel, but political beliefs state that racism against whites and sexism against males is justified and therefore non-existent, so it gets deployed rampantly. This election is one obvious result.

No, you've missed the lesson entirely in your zeal to appear clever and correct. That's fine, I'm sure you won't enjoy the trump presidency so the punishment is sort of built-in

People self-regulate their expression. I'll agree to that as self-evident. Nothing indicates that their views fall under the same regulation.

A comment I posted earlier today details one, from 538

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12915950

The point that seems to missed here is that it doesn't matter if you feel or even are justified in your beliefs, because literally everyone feels justified in their beliefs too. Turning it into a name-calling contest is emotionally satisfying to an extent, but that's part of why today we have president elect trump, so is the satisfaction worth it?

What is definitely the case is that hypocrisy is one of the "deadly sins" trump just demonstrated is mostly made of hot air.

What you seem to be saying is that you believe if you shame people enough that they keep their views hidden, you've accomplished something.

I find that pretty amusing.

I'm saying that if you believe you can so trivially comprehend and dismiss the emotional state of tens of millions of people who until today you possibly didn't even want to admit exist, you're fooling yourself badly.

It appears to be the accepted narrative, but it's the explanation coming from people who were caught completely flat-footed. What's the evidence that the narrative isn't a bunch of overwrought bullshit?