What did Democrats do wrong?

[d4m10n]

"you can't reason someone out of a place they didn't reason themselves into?"

As a former believer raised within the church this aphorism strikes me as obviously false.

If you don't know anyone who thought their way out of a system of unjustifiable faith-based beliefs (anything from faith healing to homeopathy) why did you sign up with scientific skepticism in the first place? What do you suppose skepticism is useful for, if not helping people reason themselves out of places they could not have reasoned themselves into?

 

[Donal]

OK, who saved you?

 

[d4m10n]

OK, who saved you?

I'll answer this, but please see my edits first. I asked a couple questions and I'd be particularly interested to hear you answer to the second one.

 

[johnny karate]

If the hypothesis is that this is the singular factor responsible for her loss and that she would have won had she taken a different position, yes, I disagree with that hypothesis.

If the hypothesis is that her position on this issue cost her votes, and she could have gotten more votes (though perhaps still not enough to win) had she taken a different position, then I agree with that hypothesis.

Neither is quite what we were discussing, though, which was more about the reasonableness of even considering the issue when deciding who to vote for.

I think it's reasonable to think that Harris's perceived stance on this issue (again, she didn't run on it) cost her some votes. But it wasn't because of anything so noble as defending rational thought. It was because of rank bigotry. Hard pill to swallow for Team Anti-Trans, but it's the only option that's checks all the boxes.

 

[johnny karate]

As a former believer raised within the church this aphorism strikes me as obviously false.

If you don't know anyone who thought their way out of a system of unjustifiable faith-based beliefs (anything from faith healing to homeopathy) why did you sign up with scientific skepticism in the first place? What do you suppose skepticism is useful for, if not helping people reason themselves out of places they could not have reasoned themselves into?

You've convinced me. Let us know how your mission to convert 76 million anti-vax, election-denying conspiracy theorists goes. The fate of humanity rests in your hands.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think it's reasonable to think that Harris's perceived stance on this issue (again, she didn't run on it) cost her some votes. But it wasn't because of anything so noble as defending rational thought. It was because of rank bigotry.

I encourage you to keep thinking this way. Do not examine the issue any deeper, do not consider any non-malign motives people might have for thinking differently than you. That way you can justify not making any changes.

And you can keep losing elections.

 

[johnny karate]

I encourage you to keep thinking this way. Do not examine the issue any deeper, do not consider any non-malign motives people might have for thinking differently than you. That way you can justify not making any changes.

And you can keep losing elections.

Yeah, I don't actually have anything to do with the elections. But I definitely will keep thinking this way because it's actually aligned with reality.

These people voted for anti-vaxxerism and conspiracy theories about election rigging and migrants eating pets. If you would like to attribute something more high-minded to their reasons for voting for that, the floor is yours. But I doubt you will because feigned indignation is much easier than actually refuting my argument.

 

[Donal]

As a former believer raised within the church this aphorism strikes me as obviously false.

If you don't know anyone who thought their way out of a system of unjustifiable faith-based beliefs (anything from faith healing to homeopathy) why did you sign up with scientific skepticism in the first place? What do you suppose skepticism is useful for, if not helping people reason themselves out of places they could not have reasoned themselves into?

I'm not sure I'm in "skepticism" as a movement—more as a utility. I found this place when I was looking at 9/11 conspiracy debunking, so I was already in the mindset. I've changed and evolved about a lot of stuff, but again, I was in the mindset for that.

I don't think skepticism converts anyone who already isn't moving that way.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, I don't actually have anything to do with the elections. But I definitely will keep thinking this way because it's actually aligned with reality.

These people voted for anti-vaxxerism and conspiracy theories about election rigging and migrants eating pets. If you would like to attribute something more high-minded to their reasons for voting for that, the floor is yours. But I doubt you will because feigned indignation is much easier than actually refuting my argument.

You don't have an argument. You have an unevidenced claim. How many Trump voters have to talked to? How many of them have actually told you that these are the reasons they voted for Trump?

 

[TragicMonkey]

You don't have an argument. You have an unevidenced claim. How many Trump voters have to talked to? How many of them have actually told you that these are the reasons they voted for Trump?

Well, you see...

A lot of the ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up stuff happening with Trump's criminality is quite real, it's not a conspiracy theory. You can argue that it's not very important compared to other issues, but I think you're making a mistake to dismiss concerns about it so trivially. The thing is, a lot of times we interpret things as being indicators of more than just the thing itself. For example, if someone doesn't look you in the eyes when talking to you but keeps looking away, we interpret that as meaning something about their trustworthiness. Sometimes we're wrong, there may be other issues at play, but as a rule of thumb, that's a useful indicator. People aren't wrong to take stuff like that into account, even when the act itself of looking someone in they eye doesn't really matter.

And a lot of voters take the Trump's criminality as an indicator. It's an issue where the Trump voters are in denial about what reality is, and are running roughshod over very legitimate concerns about the harm they are doing. You can claim that very few people are affected by the issue, but so what? If a politician is siding with people engaged in such a fundamental denial of reality on this issue, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they're willing to deny reality on more important stuff as well. So you don't have to think the issue is important in and of itself to care about it. It's perfectly logical to interpret it as an indicator of broader propensities.

 

[ahhell]

You don't have an argument. You have an unevidenced claim. How many Trump voters have to talked to? How many of them have actually told you that these are the reasons they voted for Trump?

It is interesting to me that I personally can't imagine anyone voting for any candidate without any reservations. For instance, that everyone that voted for Harris agreed with everything she believes or proposed. In fact, I suspect that most folks voted for her for reasons relatively unrelated to her platform. Certainly, I did, maybe I'm projecting and actually most folks that voted for here, read her website carefully and thoroughly and said yes to the whole thing.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, you see...

A lot of the ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up stuff happening with Trump's criminality is quite real, it's not a conspiracy theory.

This thread isn't about Trump. It's about what the Democrats did wrong. Trying to make it about Trump is both off topic and a tu quoque.

You can argue that it's not very important compared to other issues, but I think you're making a mistake to dismiss concerns about it so trivially.

I haven't dismissed those concerns. Which is why your comparison fails, even aside from the fact that it's off topic for the thread.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is interesting to me that I personally can't imagine anyone voting for any candidate without any reservations.

I can imagine it, but I doubt many people do it (though some pretend to), and I think it's a bad idea to not have any reservations about a politician.

I suspect lots of people who voted for Trump did so with significant reservations. But they voted for him anyways because their reservations of Harris outweighed their reservations for Trump. Had Harris given them a few less things to be reserved about (for example, not advocating for paying for sex transition surgeries for illegal immigrants) they could easily have flipped their votes.

 

[d4m10n]

You've convinced me. Let us know how your mission to convert 76 million anti-vax, election-denying conspiracy theorists goes. The fate of humanity rests in your hands.

We'll only need 1% of them and it's patently silly to pretend they all signed up for the anti-vax nonsense given how many of them got the original COVID-19 series during the first Trump term. Look up hasty generalization^WP sometime.

I don't think skepticism converts anyone who already isn't moving that way.

I don't think it makes any sense to suppose that everyone who voted for Trump will never be able to rationally reevaluate that choice.

That sort of thinking goes beyond skepticism and even cynicism on the way to misanthropy.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

You don't have an argument. You have an unevidenced claim. How many Trump voters have to talked to? How many of them have actually told you that these are the reasons they voted for Trump?

I've talked to quite a few, some of whom I've known for some time, in some cases literally all my life. And what they tell me is part of my basis for something I said earlier: voters are liars. They often don't state the real reasons for doing something, but rather reasons they think make them sound good.

As to whether people voted for him for the above-mentioned reasons, I suspect that Trump himself (and most likely Vance as well) believes they did. Eating neighborhood cats was something *Trump* chose to exclaim about during the debate; when he had probably the largest audience of the campaign, *this* was the messaging he chose to emphasize.

And it was a story Vance as good as admitted was made up. Why would they do that, if they didn't think crazy, bigoted, paranoid nonsense like that was a big part of their appeal to voters? And given their results, why should we onlookers disagree with that assessment?

 

[TragicMonkey]

This thread isn't about Trump. It's about what the Democrats did wrong. Trying to make it about Trump is both off topic and a tu quoque.

I haven't dismissed those concerns. Which is why your comparison fails, even aside from the fact that it's off topic for the thread.

On the contrary: the premise is what the Democrats did wrong was be less appealing to the voters than Trump was, and you suggested Trump voters had multiple reasons for voting for Trump and another poster should investigate those. I merely helpfully pointed out that Trump voters are engaged in a fundamental denial of reality and it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they're willing to deny reality on more important stuff as well.

As for being a tu quoque surely you realize that's not always a fallacy? If Eric Menendez calls Lyle a parricide does that mean Lyle's retort of "you, too" must necessarily be wrong?

And finally, as far as "dismissing concerns", what matters is the vote you make. If you voted for Trump despite concerns it means you dismissed those concerns in order to vote for him. Actions matter, claims about "oh, but I felt bad about it" don't. A vote is a vote is a vote, there was no space on the ballot for "share your feelings about your vote", was there?

 

[johnny karate]

You don't have an argument. You have an unevidenced claim. How many Trump voters have to talked to? How many of them have actually told you that these are the reasons they voted for Trump?

My claim is evidenced by the fact that Trump explicitly campaigned on putting an anti-vaxxer in charge of public health and then they voted for him. You don't get a pass on voting for anti-vaxxerism because your primary reason for voting for the anti-vax candidate was something other than his unambiguous anti-vaxxersim.

 

[johnny karate]

It is interesting to me that I personally can't imagine anyone voting for any candidate without any reservations. For instance, that everyone that voted for Harris agreed with everything she believes or proposed. In fact, I suspect that most folks voted for her for reasons relatively unrelated to her platform. Certainly, I did, maybe I'm projecting and actually most folks that voted for here, read her website carefully and thoroughly and said yes to the whole thing.

Stop pretending that this is about political differences. It's about society-level threats rooted in conspiracy theories and ignorance.

 

[johnny karate]

This thread isn't about Trump. It's about what the Democrats did wrong. Trying to make it about Trump is both off topic and a tu quoque.

As I've already said, there can be no discussion about what "Democrats did wrong" until there is an honest accounting of what the people that voted against her voted for.

 

[johnny karate]

We'll only need 1% of them and it's patently silly to pretend they all signed up for the anti-vax nonsense given how many of them got the original COVID-19 series during the first Trump term. Look up hasty generalization^WP sometime.

They voted for the candidate who promised to put an anti-vaxxer in charge of public health. That is literally signing up for anti-vaxxerism.