Does it hurt, denying reality constantly? You people are all kinds of fucked up.
I have personally witnessed an extraordinary number of fights breaking out due to the intense hatred from Hillary supporters who now become extremely angry at every mention of Trump. Who the greater haters are, who hates more, conservative or liberal, is becoming very obvious (not that it wasn’t always known by the wise and honest of heart).
Arguably opinion, Does it hurt you that all you have is opinion? Us people Huh? Yeah, that hurts, loads. Really? I am a one for all and all for one sort of guy. The notion of every person for them self doesn’t appeal. While I remain every bit capable of living for myself, experience has render me a different opinion. I love. Do you? Really?
Querry?
Debate 101.
(2017 amendment) Effort to lay the blame on your opponent in the argument.
Lesson 101a, if you are going to make a claim to fact, back it up with sources, and be prepare to defend them.
Still no link.
“Expect”. As in, the phenomenon being described, if it were occurring, would look like what we’re seeing, which is evidence that the phenomenon being described is occurring.
Yes, there absolutely is. Humans are terrible at generalizing across large populations, and drawing conclusions about groups based on a sample of their members is really difficult (see, for instance, pre-election polling). There are multiple acknowledged cognitive biases describing the common ways in which we reach irrational conclusions on bad evidence about groups of people. We’re bad at intuiting and reasoning about the behavior of large groups, and differentiating it from the behavior of small groups and of individuals.
To do it properly is complicated. “Fox News told me about a guy being beat up” isn’t a sound methodology for proving anything about a group of people.
From the OP:
If you don’t want to talk about it, don’t talk about it. You’re borrowing a page from the regressive left playbook to suggest people should feel guilty for second guessing your spin. This isn’t a safe space.
TTFN, I tire of it.
to exhaust the interest, patience, etc., of; make weary; bore:
It’s different to any kind of hurting;. It’s the wall.
No, the phenomenon being described, if it were occurring, would look like a bunch of guys in MAGA hats beating the shit out of a Mexican person while screaming “Fuck Obama” and “Go home beaner” or whatever- like what happened here. But we don’t have that, so you’re pretending that other crimes are attributable to Trump instead.
So for example, I could just pretend that any given example of black on white crime was motivated by anti-Trump sentiment, if I wanted to play your game. Lord knows there’s absolute shitloads of black on white crime, after all. But I don’t do that, because I don’t have to do that, because there are adequate examples of violent crime where the attacker declares aloud “This is happening because I am angry at Donald Trump!!”
That’s the difference between having evidence, and using one’s imagination to fill the lack of evidence.
It’s also worth pointing out that ‘what we’re seeing’ is nothing different than what we’ve always been seeing. There have always been racist white guys beating up on this or that person with brown skin. So why does the same old thing happening as has always happened suddenly count as evidence for some new explanation of it?
That’s not really related to somebody making a generalization, and somebody else ‘defeating’ that generalization by pretending it has to apply in 100% of cases in order to be true. I’m talking more about what a generalization is and how it’s used in language than the skill at developing a good one. So for example, your case of “Trump supporters are violent and racist”. Zero people think a statement like that is meant to apply to 100% of Trump supporters. In fact, I’d bet the majority of people who express agreement with such a statement think it even applies to half of Trump supporters. Hillary was lambasted for calling just half of Trump supporters deplorables, after all. They are branding a group according to the behavior of a minority of members in the group, and they are fully aware that that’s what they are doing, and they are doing it because it serves a rhetorical/political advantage to do so. No ‘mistake’ is being made. It’s simply not a sophisticated enough situation for things like cognitive bias to come into it. So when somebody says “Trump supporters are violent racists”, you can either do the pedantic thing and say “Not all of them!” as if they didn’t already know that, or you can address the point that they’re making, which is that violence and racism is a disturbing trend among Trump supporters. In this particular instance, the way to address that point would be to remind them that we can tie anti-Trump folks to far more racial violence than we can his supporters.
Right. You just have to drop the assumption that people who make utterances like that are actually trying to prove anything in order to engage them.
You are right about that one, I was/am an ass!
This all strikes me as terribly familiar. You and I debate for 1 or 2 exchanges, you realize you have no reply, and so start spamming incomprehensible garbage that has nothing to do with the subject at hand and seems as though you’re talking to yourself. I think it’s kind of cute actually; in my mind’s eye, I have utterly blown your mind with the power of my arguments, and you are left an incoherent mess, typing in a fugue state. Even still, I can’t help but think your time would have been better spent taking my advice and doing a little reading on this issue you freely chose to enter into a conversation about.
You just have to be a Trump supporter, or even a lukewarm conservative to know that this is true. It’s a source of constant fear- you put a sign out, you’re risking vandalism to your property. You wear a MAGA hat, you better not be in the wrong neighborhood. Anybody participating in an internet forum who is tempted to link to a Fox News story has that moment where they pause and think, “Is this really worth it? Am I going to lose friends? Am I going to be banned?”
The left is absolutely hostile.
The most salient point I’ve heard on this matter.
But the claim isn’t that they’re targeting people for being Obama supporters, so they probably wouldn’t be screaming “Fuck Obama”. And until there’s a case where the liberal attackers are wearing “I’m with Her” t-shirts, there’s no reason to expect MAGA hats either. And we do see people beating other people up screaming things like “go home beaner”, so the one thing you list that we actually should expect to see, we do in fact see.
And you’re right that people were beating up other people while screaming “go home beaner” before Trump. But there’s evidence that the rate at which such incidents occur are increasing. It is reasonable to draw a causal connection between the election of a president who dog whistled a lot of racist positions, and a spike in racist violence following the election.
Expectation is not the same as imagination. What counts as evidence of something depends on what we expect to see if that thing were the case. For differently motivated violence, we’d expect to see different things, but both count as evidence of their respective kinds of violence.
Sorry, I’ve been conflating two separate criticisms, though I think both are valid.
One is that it isn’t clear what “Trump supporters are violent” really means, so partisans hear it differently and disagree about the meaning and say that it’s true or false without really disagreeing with each other about the facts. For example, I don’t see how “Hillary supporters are violent” affects the statement “Trump supporters are violent”. Suppose I said, “Sunni extremists are violent”, and a Sunni extremist said, “Clearly not, because look at all the violence the Shia extremists are doing!” But these statements are not incompatible, the second is a non-sequitur.
But that’s too easy and there’s a good chance I’m just misreading you, so let me better articulate the more general version of the argument that these generalizations are insufficiently meaningful:
The average Hillary supporter is a woman, and women as a population or significantly less prone to violence than men, so if the average Hillary supporter is more female than the average Trump supporter (i.e., women are a greater proportion of Hillary voters than they are of Trump voters), we should expect the average Hillary supporter to be less violent. But let’s suppose that Hillary-supporting men are particularly violent, so that on average Hillary supporters are less violent, but the ones who are violent are much more violent than the average person. Is that situation captured by the claim, “Hillary supporters are violent”? Suppose instead that the average Hillary supporter is more prone to violence, but the most violent people in society supported Trump. It’s not at all unreasonable nor merely rhetorically convenient to wonder if the claim is that 1) most partisan violence is perpetrated by Clinton supporters, 2) the most violent partisans are Clinton supporters, 3) Clinton supporters are on average more violent than Trump supporters, or 4) Clinton supporters are on average more violent than the average citizen. Those are all reasonable interpretations of the vague claim “Clinton supporters are violent” (especially when everyone’s acknowledging that it doesn’t mean all Clinton supporters are violent).
The second, distinct criticism that I’d been conflating with the above is that, to the extent a meaningful generalization can be made about partisans on either side, the generalizations are being made on bad evidence because of the way that humans are bad at generalizing. Take James’ post:
“Personally”: personal anecdotes are a bad sample on which to generalize for a population, most of which you never interact with personally.
“Extraordinary”: how surprising is it that the number of anti-Trump attacks increases when Trump is at the peak of his prominence? Humans are bad at identifying the baseline from which we measure deviations in order to tease out causation.
“Hillary supporters”: how do we know these are Hillary supporters? Just because they’re beating up Trump supporters? Do we have any independent evidence about how these people feel about Hillary? If we assume in that every time a Trump supporter gets beat up, they’re being beat up by a Hillary supporter and it’s because they’re a Trump supporter, then it isn’t at all surprising that the data show that Trump supporters are being beat up by Hillary supporters (and only Hillary supporters!) and because they’re Trump supporters (and with no other justification!).
“extremely angry at every mention of Trump”: Was it the mere mention? Was it mere endorsement? Was it endorsement of a specific policy of Trump’s? How much of these personally witnessed episodes was witnessed, just the part where people start beating each other up, or the whole interaction from start to finish? Again, if we’re assuming that the evidence that there’s an altercation and that the victim is a Trump supporter is tantamount to evidence that they’re being beaten up by a Hillary supporter because they’re a Trump supporter, we aren’t really drawing a causal connection between supporting Hillary support, Trump support, and violence. It’s just assuming it in, and then turning around and acting as though we’ve discovered the connection we already assumed existed.
We’re talking about a group of tens of millions, spread across several million square miles, comprising different sexes, races, cultures, etc. It looks like the generalization being made, if it means anything, means something like that knowing someone is a Hillary supporter is independent evidence of their likelihood of committing violence. If the personal observation of an unspecified number of incidents about which the observer likely had only partial information, and confined to the observer’s location (almost certainly a single state, likely a single town or neighborhood) – if that’s the evidence we’re going on, the generalization is a bad one, we have effectively no reason to believe that knowing that someone is a Hillary supporter tells us anything about their likelihood of violence.
Similar criticisms apply to incidents witnessed-by-proxy on the news: the news is not a representative sample of incidents.
That’s being a little sassy, but it’s a valid and important point. And if your point is just that the same can be said about claims like “Trump supporters are violent”, you’re right, in which case, carry on.
You are so full of shit your eyes are brown. Instead of doing the exact thing that you are accusing others of doing (typical stupid-as-a-stump liberal tactic) why don’t you provide some evidence?
I can’t help it if your claim is unfalsibiable, that’s not my problem. We have leftists attacking Trump supporters, we don’t have Trump supporters attacking leftists, so you are trying to pretend that an unknown quantity of white-on-other racial violence is motivated by Trump in absence of any evidence to that effect. I understand that it’s important to you not to accept that it’s the left that’s being violent here, but you don’t actually have a reason to think so outside of desire.
No, there isn’t, at least not if you don’t sneakily change what you mean by ‘such incidents’. If you check the SPLC data and places like Vox news that trumpet it, they are comparing incidents where somebody says “Built the Wall” and a nearby hispanic is offended as ‘hate crimes’, while simply not recording any incidents of trump supporters being harassed. There was a miniscule increase in anti-Muslim violence in 2015, which still has it way behind anti-semitism.
Except that there’s no such thing. Rates of violence against hispanics have been steadily rising for five years, since before Trump was a factor. Violence against Muslims rose a miniscule 6% last year, and violence against Blacks is irrelevant because Trump hasn’t spoken ill of blacks- and of course, because any increased violence against blacks (if it exists, I don’t know) would be much more easily explained by reaction to BLM.
Which brings me to my other point- if you’re really talking about “A spike in racist violence since the election”, then obviously, OBVIOUSLY the lion’s share of that spike is coming from anti-white crime as BLM-type groups take to the streets burning things down, attacking people for being white, and etc.
Yeah, and I think that disagreement isn’t real, it’s rhetoric. The person who initially says “Trump supporters are violent” doesn’t mean 100% of them (or even most of them, probably). The person who hears the statement and response to it knows full well the statement wasn’t said meaning 100%, also. So if the two of them end up arguing over the significance of some non-violent Trump supporters existing, then they are engaging in a bunch of dishonest political posturing where neither of of them is saying what they mean, or responding to what they know the other person means.
So take it out of politics, if I say “Fat people are lazy”, I say that knowing there are certainly some fat people that aren’t lazy. If you respond by saying “Well, my Dad is fat and hes’ the most active person I’ve ever known”, then you responded knowing that I knew that some fat people aren’t lazy. If I take the bait and argue with you about your Dad and- heaven forbid- why generalizations are harmful, then we’ve just launched a dishonest conversation about nothing that goes nowhere, when the topic should have been whether laziness is a trend among fat people, and maybe what can be done about it, and so on.
Well, when you accept that both of them are generalizations that are made to evoke some political sentiment and gain some rhetorical advantage, and then you see that one of the two statements has evidence to support it and the other doesn’t, and then you further note that the statement of the two that doesn’t actually have any evidence to support it is the one that was promoted by the media this entire time, that’s why the juxtaposition is important.
It’s an outlining of hypocrisy, in other words. Increasingly, liberals attack somebody or burn something down every time something doesn’t go their way. This is bad enough, but doing it while pushing a narrative that the other side are the dangerous, violent ones is worse.
Why do you think there was all this talk about the “hidden Trump vote”? It’s because fewer and fewer people want to deal with the social consequences of disagreeing with a liberal.
That is certainly true.
That ordinarily pans out. I think the problem though is that as long as you’re talking about statistics, most people aren’t violent anyway. So the violent folks are such an extreme outlier that I don’t know gender demographics is really important. What’s more, a ‘supporter’ I don’t think means in this context anybody who is predisposed to vote one way or the other; the typical supporter of either (any) candidate just barely gives a shit or thinks about it at all- they vote for the party they have always voted for or the issue they have always supported, and that’s it. When you’re talking about a pair of groups into which virtually everybody in the country falls, saying one group or the other is violent is just stupid- the country would be a very different place if half of us had violent tendencies.
So when we’re looking at ‘supporters’, it would probably be more helpful only to consider those people who are such big supporters that they are willing to wear a funny hat, and are willing to phonebank/stump/go out on the street and yell about their candidate. I’m quite sure when people say “Trump supporters are violent” they mean the guys in red hats to go to rallies and yell and chant and such, not everybody who pulled a lever for Trump.
But of course, somebody who violently attacks somebody else because of their political prefernce is already one of these ‘super-supporters’ by definition, regardless of what else they’ve done.
The OTHER thing to consider is that, like it or not, Hillary doesn’t really matter. This election wasn’t Hillary vs Trump, it was Trump vs. anti-Trump. That’s how it was covered, that’s how virtually every conversation took place during this cycle, and that’ probably part of why he won. It feels disingenuous to call anybody who attacks somebody for supporting Trump “A Hillary Supporter” when odds are they were only supporting her reluctantly and by default.
Simply put, the question boils down to who is more likely to resort to violence: the guys in the red hats chanting “Build the Wall” or the guys with the three-colored-hair chanting “Fuck Donald Trump”. We have little evidence that the “MAGA” squads are actually violent people. We have exceedingly little evidence of this compared to how often they were accused of being violent by the press.
Even more simply put, Trump supporters were taking a calculated risk of violence every time they showed support for Trump in public, even as the press was berating them for being the violent ones.
Yeah, but if you get enough of them, they start to mean something. I’ll submit right now that virtually every Trump supporter in the country had at least a few moments during the campaign where they felt the need to hide/deny their support for fear of violence, harassment, unemployment, etc. In many ways, that’s just life if you’re a conservative in the U.S., because the left really is that violent and dangerous, but it was worse this time. So what you’re seeing is James’ anecdote, but what you’re not seeing is every single Trump supporter in an urban part of the country reading that anecdote and thinking “Yep.”
Every single Republican who lives in a town of more than 10,000 people or so knows the risk they are taking by putting up a simple bumpersticker for what they believe. Every single one of us has a list of how many friends we would lose if we expressed how we felt about Trump, immigration, etc. on social media- assuming we haven’t already taken that plunge.
Are they increasing? This one is certainly bad and high profile, but Trump supporters were attacked outside his rallies on a continual basis. Hillary supporters being attacked at her rallies was virtually unheard of.
There’s no reason to make such assumptions. Even if we only take examples where the attacker explicitly shrieks that they are doing what they are doing because of how much they hate Donald Trump, that is sufficient.
Leftards (Marxists) can only deny racism against whites for so long until there is no denying it anymore. One of these days they’re going to find themselves on the opposite side of an oncoming tide because they willingly chose ignorance instead of understanding. When that happens they’ll have nobody to blame but themselves for the inevitable backlash.
Except that the are absolutely incapable of seeing reality through their sad little brainwashed repertoire. They will be the people running around like lost guinea pigs screaming “How did this ever happen?” Hell, there are stories of them getting robbed or raped and NOT blaming the perpetrator. There is no hope for these people, and a sane society would ensure they have no ability to inflict their pathology on others. That is what has happened to them, a disease process.