The Winner of Our Discontent — 2016 U.S. Election Results Discussion

[Ghost X]

Can't you say this for ANY politician?

Well, that's really a red herring of a response, isn't it? I'm asking you the question about Trump specifically, since I didn't wish to spoon feed you with my views. I'm trying to get you to look at your own views and that of others critically, since I've noticed you seem to hear something about what Trump has said or a relative has said on facebook, and come here to find counter-arguments. It is something you should really be able to do on your own. A job made harder when a lot of the media basically acts as a propaganda wing for whatever side it is batting for, but if you don't want to be ruled by your inferiors, you gotta try. It always amazes me when people say they don't have time for such a thing, when their world is falling apart around them. Priorities much? Anyways...

What do you see as problematic about immigration?

Given his cabinet picks, how does this align with what he says in that video?

As far as I'm concerned, his actions so far show he doesn't give two shits about the working people. From how he handled the Carrier deal (where Trump created an instruction manual for corporations to exploit the US government, before ultimately shipping jobs away anyway, exactly like General Motors did to my state), as well as his pick for Labor Secretary, Andrew Puzder. Among other red flags, Puzder is pro-mechanisation of the work force. Not necessarily a bad thing if he helps the resulting unemployed people to transition into areas where they aren't obsolete. I ever so highly doubt that'll happen though. Social darwinism is the Republican way.

 

[Dashell]

I'm trying to get you to look at your own views and that of others critically, since I've noticed you seem to hear something about what Trump has said or a relative has said on facebook, and come here to find counter-arguments.

Because I want to hear both people's views before I make a decision? Is that really such a bad thing to get both sides of the story before I respond? I don't always know what he's talking about and when I hear pro Trump people say it's one thing, I want to hear the other side because I feel like they're not always correct.

 

[Ghost X]

Assuming there are two sides to the debate, which there isn't, what if neither side is correct? What if all sides are incorrect? How do you find that out?

 

[Cthulhu]

Reasoning and logic and facts and shit. Especially the facts part can be hard to come by these days; stay away from biased sources (e.g. all news sites) and you should be able to get by.

Also, remember the "false dichotomy" fallacy; it is possible neither 'side' is right (or wrong). It's possible there is no right or wrong, since that in itself can be a false dichotomy.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

I'm trying to get you to look at your own views and that of others critically, since I've noticed you seem to hear something about what Trump has said or a relative has said on facebook, and come here to find counter-arguments. It is something you should really be able to do on your own.

That's what she's doing, bro.

Assuming there are two sides to the debate, which there isn't, what if neither side is correct? What if all sides are incorrect? How do you find that out?

You don't.

As I've said before, "people should educate themselves" is a useless platitude that sounds grand but is completely lacking in utility -- much like "people have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps" or "hard work is all it takes." The average person simply does not have the resources (whether they be the time, money or contacts) to educate themselves about the world at large, or even their own nation, and so they rely on journalists (sadly not always reliable) or pundits (pretty much never reliable) and other people whom they perceive as informed for help.

Stepping outside their most immediate circle to ask for additional perspective is, for most people, the extent of what they can possibly do to educate themselves. The fact that someone is making an effort to that end here at all by seeking a perspective outside their immediate circle and the most obvious traditional sources (e.g. CNN, FOX, etc.) should be seen as a worthy endeavor you wish to assist with, not something to deliver ineffectual adages to and nothing more.

Yes, it's good that you didn't want to just spoonfeed someone your own views, but you were being asked to -- and you can do that in a way that doesn't "poison the well," so to speak. "Well, the way I see it ..." or
"My feelings are ..." or "Most/a lot/some people/voters/folks/pygmy elephants think that ..." and so on.

Phrasing like that alone is inherently helpful on a critical thinking level because it doesn't present definitive declarations that run counter to further curiosity. The phrasing alone indicates that there are other perspectives, which is a helpful place for that person to continue their search with specific questions (e.g. "Why do some people think [blank] is a bad idea?").

And of course, you can always preface (or endface ) your own views with a disclaimer: "But this is just what I think/feel. "

Given his cabinet picks, how does this align with what he says in that video?

That's pretty much the million-dollar question right now. His picks do seem to largely align with his campaign sentiments, so that means they're mostly people who seem to take issue with the existence of the departments they're being asked to lead.

Reasoning and logic and facts and shit. Especially the facts part can be hard to come by these days; stay away from biased sources (e.g. all news sites) and you should be able to get by.

Definitely good advice, but until you get used to their strategies, it's hard to recognize what sources are heavily biased. Most that are make an effort to appear otherwise -- often right in their names or mission statements.

Also, remember the "false dichotomy" fallacy; it is possible neither 'side' is right (or wrong). It's possible there is no right or wrong, since that in itself can be a false dichotomy.

Probably the best advice.

 

[Cthulhu]

Next time everyone should just vote Cthulhu, no fake news or weird games, just direct mind manipulation and guaranteed destruction of all.

 

[JechtShotMK9]

Next time everyone should just vote Cthulhu, no fake news or weird games, just direct mind manipulation and guaranteed destruction of all.

How is that any different than Trump?

 

[Ghost X]

That's what she's doing, bro.

I'd argue she's not doing that. There's more to critical thinking than comparing views. Merely doing that was getting me shitty marks in one particular course I did at uni anyway ... until the tutor helped me.

You don't.

I'm not sure you understand what I'm trying to get at. There are certainly further things a person can do if various sides are not telling them the truth, if they're aware of those things. If they're not aware, that doesn't mean you should just give up on them either .

I'm not telling Dashell to pull herself up by her own bootstraps. Me saying "It is something you should be able to do on your own" is completely different from me saying "You should have learnt how to do that on your own already!!!" That was my flawed approach in a previous run-in I had with yourself a while ago, which I think you're referring to (re: the wonders of rand paul's tax policy, iirc). I'm not doing "nothing more" either. I'm assisting by applying the socratic method, by asking her questions, and trying to give her the tools to think for herself. Spoonfeeding her my views, even with various qualifying terms that communicate it is just my view, will not solve the problem at hand here.

In this post-truth era that we're in, people don't know what is true (or at least founded on evidence and what is logical), and that is what needs to be tackled. Addressing the product (by spoonfeeding) doesn't address the systemic issue (being able to discern truth) going on in one's thinking. People need to be provided with the tools to work out for themselves truth from nonsense. I don't mean to throw Dashell under a bus, so I'll stop using her as an example . I'm glad she seems to have an interest in politics, but it needs development. I'm trying to be nice, not mean. Relevant gif.

Asking opinions and picking what seems to be the better argument is one thing. Analysing and weighing things against the evidence (which itself needs to be identified and viewed in the right context), and determining if various sides contain elements of truth (or not, etc) is another. Then you can go on to formulate your own argument (ie: "think for yourself"). That's what I was trying to get at, and sure, I could probably improve my technique . That's what forums are for .

What needs to happen is improved new media literacy. If my social circles are a representative microcosm (which they probably aren't), I'm frankly terrified .

 

[Cthulhu]

Next time everyone should just vote Cthulhu, no fake news or weird games, just direct mind manipulation and guaranteed destruction of all.

How is that any different than Trump?

He only guaranteed the destruction of Clinton, the rest he wants to put behind a wall

 

[Clement Rage]

Part of learning anything involves finding out what the arguments are. Comparing views alone may not give the full picture, but it's still a worthwhile thing to do, and assuming someone isn't thinking for themselves just because they're canvassing for opinions is jumping the gun a bit.

 

[Ghost X]

Not if you still take Trump seriously, I'm afraid.

 

[Ite]

I know it's been over a month now, but I still can't really believe it...

 

[Cthulhu]

Spoiler: Simpsons did it

 

[Cthulhu]

re: that: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...-briefings-it-doesnt-matter-how-smart-you-are

 

[Strangelove]

saying 'i'm, like, a smart person' seems like something that would be a joke on tv to show how not smart someone is

is this a joke

like, all of this

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

General update on this thread: I'm going to leave it where it is until after the electoral voters confirm Trump (or pick whoever they're picking).

 

[Cthulhu]

saying 'i'm, like, a smart person' seems like something that would be a joke on tv to show how not smart someone is

is this a joke

like, all of this

That's what we all thought when it was first announced. I was waiting for the "trolololoo" singing right up until the election. Now, I'm not too sure anymore

 

[Octo]

the electoral voters confirm Trump (or pick whoever they're picking).

Can someone explain this in the simplest terms possibru to someone who knows very little about the machinations of American politics? This is the first I've heard of such a thing.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

Next Monday, the Electoral College (the people who actually elect the President and Vice President) will meet in each state and cast their votes. In some states, they're free to vote however they want; in others, they're required to go with that state's popular vote; in others still, they're free to vote however they want if the vote was very close (I think less than a 2% difference?).

Anyway, they're most likely just going to confirm Trump, though there have been some rumblings here and there from electoral voters who insist they won't. I expect some will dissent, but I doubt it will be enough to make a difference.

 

[Octo]

Sounds like a chimps tea party

Has it ever happened that the guy that won never got voted in by the electoral voters?

 

[ForceStealer]

Yes and no. Originally the President and Vice President were elected separately. And I believe in the 1850s or so the electors picked a different VP than had won.

EDIT: Ah, clarification, some 1836 electors refused to vote for the VP (Richard M Johnson), and so he didn't get the number required. He was voted in by the Senate instead.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

So, it's basically never amounted to anything, and probably won't this time either since most electors become electors by being really, really loyal to whichever party they're affiliated with.

Who knows, though. We'll see.

 

[Octo]

So it's kinda like the Royal Family - they don't really do anything but their continued existence is an affront to democracy

 

[Cthulhu]

on why Clinton's campaign was er, suboptimal

 

[Ghost X]

Ironically, Rex Tillerson, Trump's pick for secretary of state, believes in climate change and has argued for a carbon tax. But don't get your hopes up, Exxon was the slowest of its fossil fuel competitors to back the Paris climate deal, among a list of other shady shit going back decades. But if we ignore all the bad stuff, and just focus on his belief in climate change, does that mean he is a puppet of the Chinese, or 18th century (awfully Jewish) banking families, or Satan, or UN globalist commies, or alien lizard people, or (somehow) all the above? Not quite sure. If you have the answer, fill me in.