"Woke" culture

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Sdel said:

Personal experience.  Your going on about how horrible it is to vote for a child rapist.  I'm telling you I've seen the election where the child rapist won by a landslide.  Of course, the reason why the child rapist won was so there could be a do-over election but still, the electorate overwhelmingly voted for a "child rapist".

Could you tell me who the child rapist was? I really don't know what you're talking about. 

[Frances]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

I am not pleased with certain people's votes, but I know these people and I know they are not morally repugnant individuals.

If I felt a family member was simply OK with rape, child trafficking, hate crimes, etc., then I would have a problem with them in general.  I wouldn't have to wait to see how they voted to form my opinion.

If there are people who believe everyone who voted for Candidate X (either party) is morally repugnant, IMO that is really low level reasoning.  There's a reason our elections are always so close, and it's not because 50% of Americans are absolute scum.

I think there’s a pretty profound difference between thinking someone is morally repugnant and thinking they made an immoral or bad choice.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Sdel said:

But no, I do not think there is not a political platform that I can think of that would be morally repugnant because that is not how political platforms are developed.  Morality is a moving target and should a political party ever get to the point where "child rape" becomes acceptable idea to put forward, the prevailing morality will have changed to match such an outcome....meaning it will no longer be generally considered immoral and it would probably no longer be considered "rape".

OK. So if I'm understanding correctly, by the way platforms are developed, if it's part of a platform, it is no longer immoral. Is that right? 

[SKL]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

But say that you always thought he DIDN'T think child rape was fine, but then he voted for the convicted child rapist. Would that be a problem for you or not? 

How would I even know whom he voted for ... that is not something I discuss with people unless they are very close.  I guess if someone blabbed "I'm voting for Joe Rapist" I might say "you do know he's a convicted child rapist, right?"  And if he said "yeah, I'm all about child rape" I would assume he was either (a) making a bad joke or (b) an extreme psychopath who isn't worth arguing with.  I mean what is the point?  Am I gonna change his mind?  I'd keep my kids away from him though ....

Again, why do you keep wanting to discuss extreme impossible scenarios?

[Sdel]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

Could you tell me who the child rapist was? I really don't know what you're talking about. 

 

No, I won't.  It was a very disturbing election, for many reasons.  I'm just trying to make the point, that the majority of people don't vote or not vote based on a personal like or dislike of a person; they support certain ideas and that your hypothetical doesn't stand up to real life testing.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, SKL said:

How would I even know whom he voted for ... that is not something I discuss with people unless they are very close.  I guess if someone blabbed "I'm voting for Joe Rapist" I might say "you do know he's a convicted child rapist, right?"  And if he said "yeah, I'm all about child rape" I would assume he was either (a) making a bad joke or (b) an extreme psychopath who isn't worth arguing with.  I mean what is the point?  Am I gonna change his mind?  I'd keep my kids away from him though ....

Again, why do you keep wanting to discuss extreme impossible scenarios?

Just as a thought experiment 🙂 . 

So there are no PLAUSIBLE scenarios which would lead you to feel that a vote was immoral, correct? 

[Frances]

53 minutes ago, Sdel said:

For me, the answer to that is no, because I don't think about elections in terms of the individual players once we get past the primary.  I'm not going to suddenly stop supporting a set of political ideals, or do a complete about face to support a set of ideals I don't believe in, because I don't like the particular person running for office once we get to the general election.

 

I’m sorry, but party over country is pretty scary to me and precisely how some countries have ended up with terrible, dangerous leaders. Edited to add that I think some very bad leaders in history have been far beyond simply unlikeable.

Edited November 8, 2020 by Frances

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Sdel said:

No, I won't.  It was a very disturbing election, for many reasons.  I'm just trying to make the point, that the majority of people don't vote or not vote based on a personal like or dislike of a person; they support certain ideas and that your hypothetical doesn't stand up to real life testing.

It wasn't my hypothetical 🙂 . I was just trying to see if there were situations in which people felt that a vote for the "other side" was actually immoral or wrong. That was the one SKL came up with. Can you think of others? 

[Carol in Cal.]

11 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I believe you're misinterpreting the meaning of "unsafe" in this context. Have you seen the explanations upthread? 

I am fully aware of the meaning of ‘unsafe’ in this context, even before the explanations, but the explanations fall short in this case in that they were accompanied by the other OTT actions I cited from the OP.  And also, while it is fine to adopt new interpretations of an old word, it is also important to know the audience that you are communicating to, and to consider how what you say would seem to them.  Given what this family has been through, that term is quite hurtful in the original sense of the word, and it’s not so easy to just say, well I didn’t mean it that way.

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Just as a thought experiment 🙂 . 

So there are no PLAUSIBLE scenarios which would lead you to feel that a vote was immoral, correct? 

What I would say is that I can't see my opinion of a close person (friend/family member) significantly change because of how they may vote in a real life election.

And if I did believe my loved one was about to cast a vote for a depraved candidate / platform, then maybe I would check to make sure they had access to the facts I had access to ... or I might just mention a few salient points.  I would NEVER tell a person how they should or shouldn't vote, but I don't think it's wrong to provide factual info that a voter should have.

Maybe you should tell us your example of when a vote is "immoral," so we could better understand what you're trying to get at.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Carol in Cal. said:

I am fully aware of the meaning of ‘unsafe’ in this context, even before the explanations, but the explanations fall short in this case in that they were accompanied by the other OTT actions I cited from the OP.  And also, while it is fine to adopt new interpretations of an old word, it is also important to know the audience that you are communicating to, and to consider how what you say would seem to them.  Given what this family has been through, that term is quite hurtful in the original sense of the word, and it’s not so easy to just say, well I didn’t mean it that way.

She probably shouldn't have used the word using the context, you're right. I don't like that usage myself. 

[Sdel]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

It wasn't my hypothetical 🙂 . I was just trying to see if there were situations in which people felt that a vote for the "other side" was actually immoral or wrong. That was the one SKL came up with. Can you think of others? 

I've already answered that I don't accept your premise.  The place to vote for/against a candidate based on who you think most represents the party is the primary.  Once you get to the general, you are voting for the working ideals to guide the government not the person.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

Maybe you should tell us your example of when a vote is "immoral," so we could better understand what you're trying to get at.

Actually, I don't think that's helpful, because it's easier to imagine where someone is coming from if you put yourself in their shoes. OP's daughter clearly THOUGHT the vote was immoral. That's how she was acting. I am merely suggesting that if you thought the same way, and you were young, you may act the same way, minus the "safe" wording (since it wasn't used that way when you were young.) 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Sdel said:

I've already answered that I don't accept your premise.  The place to vote for/against a candidate based on who you think most represents the party is the primary.  Once you get to the general, you are voting for the working ideals to guide the government not the person.

And the ideals don't change depending on who's in charge of the party, is that correct? We would expect the country to be run similarly regardless who's on top of the party? 

[SKL]

16 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Actually, I don't think that's helpful, because it's easier to imagine where someone is coming from if you put yourself in their shoes. OP's daughter clearly THOUGHT the vote was immoral. That's how she was acting. I am merely suggesting that if you thought the same way, and you were young, you may act the same way, minus the "safe" wording (since it wasn't used that way when you were young.) 

I don't think I would have acted the same way as a young adult.  I would have stated my understanding of the facts and my opinion.  If my mom went on to vote for someone/something I considered repugnant, I would be very disappointed.  But I would respect her decision, and I wouldn't make it about my feelings re unrelated personal stuff.

I mean, I fought with my mom about stuff as a college student.  At 18, I had a bad summer job she thought I should quit.  I felt that it would be unethical to quit, and she thought I was being treated unethically by my boss.  So I guess you could say we had a difference about morals, but I didn't see it as her being immoral.  I was angry, but I didn't feel "unsafe" to state my feelings, nor did she.

Edited November 8, 2020 by SKL

[Sdel]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

And the ideals don't change depending on who's in charge of the party, is that correct? We would expect the country to be run similarly regardless who's on top of the party? 

 

We should expect the country to be run similarly regardless of who is on top of the party; that is the purpose of a political party.  The ideals expressed by the party are not formed at the top, they are formed by the electorate at the bottom.   There may be stylistic or policy focus differences between the individuals, but yes, generally when you see a Democratic or Republican politician you expect a certain amount of similarity in how they are going to run things in keeping with the current ideology of their electorate.

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

I don't think I would have acted the same way as a young adult.  I would have stated my understanding of the facts and my opinion.  If my mom went on to vote for someone/something I considered repugnant, I would be very disappointed.  But I would respect her decision, and I wouldn't make it about my feelings re unrelated personal stuff.

I mean, I fought with my mom about stuff as a college student.  At 18, I had a bad summer job she thought I should quit.  I felt that it would be unethical to quit, and she thought I was being treated unethically by my boss.  So I guess you could say we had a difference about morals, but I didn't see it as her being immoral.  I was angry, but I didn't feel "unsafe" to state my feelings, nor did she.

I've definitely been in situations where I've felt unsafe to state my feelings with my mom. In fact, I feel unsafe stating almost all feelings to my mom. So I think we're partially coming at this question with different perspectives. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Sdel said:

We should expect the country to be run similarly regardless of who is on top of the party; that is the purpose of a political party.  The ideals expressed by the party are not formed at the top, they are formed by the electorate at the bottom.   There may be stylistic or policy focus differences between the individuals, but yes, generally when you see a Democratic or Republican politician you expect a certain amount of similarity in how they are going to run things in keeping with the current ideology of their electorate.

Interesting. That's not my personal perspective, because the older I get, the more I think that the individuals who actually run things matter. 

[Frances]

18 minutes ago, Sdel said:

I've already answered that I don't accept your premise.  The place to vote for/against a candidate based on who you think most represents the party is the primary.  Once you get to the general, you are voting for the working ideals to guide the government not the person.

People who live in my state rarely have any say in who wins the primary, as it is almost always decided by the time we vote. 
 

Can you not imagine a scenario where you thought the candidate who won your party’s primary would be so bad for the country that you couldn’t vote for them? That you would abstain, vote for their opponent, or vote third party?

[Frances]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

Interesting. That's not my personal perspective, because the older I get, the more I think that the individuals who actually run things matter. 

I think lots of people looking at world and US history would agree with you.

[Sdel]

4 minutes ago, Frances said:

People who live in my state rarely have any say in who wins the primary, as it is almost always decided by the time we vote. 
 

Can you not imagine a scenario where you thought the candidate who won your party’s primary would be so bad for the country that you couldn’t vote for them? That you would abstain, vote for their opponent, or vote third party?

Honestly, no.  The only time I've abstained, or even voted outside my ideals is because the particular candidate wasn't actually from my party or voting district and I didn't feel they had any business representing me.  

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, Sdel said:

Honestly, no.  The only time I've abstained, or even voted outside my ideals is because the particular candidate wasn't actually from my party or voting district and I didn't feel they had any business representing me.  

But we all know that parties do shift. A party that represented your ideals 20 years ago may not represent them anymore. In the long term, that's quite clear. 

[Frances]

3 minutes ago, Sdel said:

Honestly, no.  The only time I've abstained, or even voted outside my ideals is because the particular candidate wasn't actually from my party or voting district and I didn't feel they had any business representing me.  

Thanks for your honesty. That explains a lot for me.

[TravelingChris]

14 hours ago, Twolittleboys said:

Have you considered that it may mostly be frustration? I am far from perfect when it comes to conservation/sustainable living but would have a hard time with someone I cared about not believing that "climate change is super important". Because it is. It's just a fact. I can understand not acting on it - obviously that's not great but there are lots of things we know we should do and don't. But someone just not believing facts (or believing things that are clearly untrue) would deeply frustrate me.

Well considering her father is a PhD physicist and that we both truly believe of course there is climate change-  there has been climate change for the entire history of the Earth, why in the world should my youngest feel (and she usually doesn't actually) that what she considered most important should be what we consider most important?    (And no, we don't believe the universe is 6000 years old, or whatever).  BUt that is actually why, having researched a lot, neither of us believe hysteria.  We rely on our intellects and knowledge, not slogans and publicity.  We were environmentalits when we were both kids and still are.  But we are realists too.  And garbage like the Paris Climate Accords which allow the worse polluters and the most populous countries free rein to pollute are exactly that.  

Furthermore.  I know from one of my fields, economics, that as countries have populations become middle class or better, environmental concerns like saving wildlife and wild habitats, etc become much more well supported.  

Of course, it is frustrating to have someone not believe something you hold dear.  But so what?  It is part of life.  None of us believe exactly the same as anyone else and particularly won't rank priorities the same either.  

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, TravelingChris said:

And garbage like the Paris Climate Accords which allow the worse polluters and the most populous countries free rein to pollute are exactly that.  

What would you rather have? 🙂 

[Sdel]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

But we all know that parties do shift. A party that represented your ideals 20 years ago may not represent them anymore. In the long term, that's quite clear. 

They change every 4 years, as the parties make their platforms at their conventions.  We each make our determinations at every individual election.   Of course they may change over the years, and some people definitely spend more or less time in analyzing their decision process than others.  But I certainly don't feel like any potential shift in the ideals 20+year in the future has anything to do with anything.  Either my opinion will shift with it and they'll keep my votes....or it won't.  Either way, I'll still vote my ideals.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Sdel said:

Either way, I'll still vote my ideals.

Interesting. I guess I have greater faith (or greater distrust, depending) in individuals than that 🙂 . People are such interesting creatures... I can't help feeling that the specifics matter. 

[TravelingChris]

5 hours ago, Frances said:

I don’t know, why didn’t more people who voted to continue more of the same consider the knowledge and experience of numerous life long Rs who held top leadership positions in their party such as governors, senators, representatives, admirals, generals, national security officials, cabinet members, administration officials and staffs, etc. who said that this is not normal. We need to put country over party. We can hash out policies later when our country isn’t divided and led by a chaotic administration violating democratic norms and standards right and left? An ever increasing number of high ranking people and regular citizens within the party have been trying to get people to see the forest through the trees because this is not just another administration regardless of how badly some want it to be so.

Are you kidding that the country won't be divided????????  It certainly is and will be for a long time, I think,  Cause for so many of us,  if B and H are president and V president, we will not like them at all.  I mean in what world do you think most people who voted opposite from you will be all united to join up to the opposite side?  You think we want them to take our first amendment, second amendment, etc. ??????

 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, TravelingChris said:

Are you kidding that the country won't be divided????????  It certainly is and will be for a long time, I think,  Cause for so many of us,  if B and H are president and V president, we will not like them at all.  I mean in what world do you think most people who voted opposite from you will be all united to join up to the opposite side?  You think we want them to take our first amendment, second amendment, etc. ??????

I don't expect people to be united, for what it's worth. People are allowed to disagree. Just... judge your side by the same standards as you judge the opposite side, OK? Figure out what is acceptable and what isn't and live up to it. Even if you want different policies, let's all agree on some stuff, or there's no country left. 

[Sdel]

13 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Interesting. I guess I have greater faith (or greater distrust, depending) in individuals than that 🙂 . People are such interesting creatures... I can't help feeling that the specifics matter. 

I start with the presumption that all candidates are already corrupt or will be so shortly after being elected.  All that is left is to vote for ideals.

[TravelingChris]

3 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Is politics simply out of bounds? I just don't see that. Political decisions can feel like moral ones to people. I understand that people may not AGREE on which choice is the moral one, but I don't understand why someone can't be upset about someone else's politics, IF they think they have a moral dimensions. 

Yes, but someone could have moral objections also to the Dem candidates too.  From restriction our constitutional rights to trying to impoverish our country.  Those are moral issues too.

 

The parent shouldn't manipulate an adult child to vote against the way the want to vote and neither should the child do that.  

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Sdel said:

I start with the presumption that all candidates are already corrupt or will be so shortly after being elected.  All that is left is to vote for ideals.

First of all, as someone who comes from a country where bribing officials and the police was absolutely expected, I can tell you that while it's hard to entirely root out corruption, its degree varies widely. Assuming that everyone is corrupt anyway is a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Also, corruption isn't the only axis. People are different. 

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

Yes, but someone could have moral objections also to the Dem candidates too.  From restriction our constitutional rights to trying to impoverish our country.  Those are moral issues too.

I wasn't talking about specific policies. I was just saying that someone could treat voting as a moral issue. 

[Frances]

35 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

Are you kidding that the country won't be divided????????  It certainly is and will be for a long time, I think,  Cause for so many of us,  if B and H are president and V president, we will not like them at all.  I mean in what world do you think most people who voted opposite from you will be all united to join up to the opposite side?  You think we want them to take our first amendment, second amendment, etc. ??????

 

I said nothing about people not being divided anymore or liking or disliking the D candidates. I was merely discussing the unprecedented number of lifelong party leaders and ordinary citizens who voted to oust the sitting president of their own party and publicly urged others to do the same. To put country over party. If you’re not familiar with the various movements, there is a thread on the politics board tracking all of the former R governors, senators, representatives, admirals, generals, national security officials, presidential  administration officials and staff, etc. who publicly declared their opposition to the leader of their lifelong party and urged others to vote him out for the good of the country. The Lincoln Project, one of the groups, was also featured on 60 minutes recently. There are several others groups and many individuals.

Edited to add for those that might be interested in the 60 minutes video, I actually found the short extra segment to do the best succinct job of explaining their reasoning for the actions they took to defeat the sitting president of their party.

Edited November 8, 2020 by Frances