Avaleigh

Finally! Some good news!

That's fair. I was trying to not be too harsh, but I agree. I also agree with @bluegirl147's point that it's people being uninformed combined with rivers of misinformation. That's what I mean when people are watching TikTok videos that are designed to put fear into people. I also think there are people who choose to remain ignorant about certain topics for their own peace of mind. They don't want to dwell on the stuff they can't control, so they tune out and just focus on what brings them joy. In some ways I wish I could be like that, but I feel like I want to continue to do my best to balance both worlds. I want to be reasonably informed, but I don't want this stuff to be the bulk of what I think about throughout the day. I feel like I'd get depressed that way. I think this thread has been helpful for me to talk out everything I've been feeling since the election, so I thank everyone who has contributed to this conversation. It feels good to have a place to vent a bit about how we ended up here *again*.

The majority who voted for Trump know perfectly well what he's capable of and they voted for him anyway. It's frustrating and heartbreaking and in some ways it feels like hate won. That being said, @Soapy Goddess is right that there are people who voted for Trump because they had valid concerns and thought he was their best option for having those concerns addressed. They aren't the majority, but they do exist and it is important to reflect on why the democrats lost certain people so that they can start winning elections again. One of my friends just had a baby. Her baby was about two weeks old when she voted for Trump. To be perfectly frank, she doesn't know much about politics. (I'm actually being kind here. She knows next to nothing.) She's the kind of friend you go shopping with and get makeup/workout/ selfcare/cooking tips from. She's a wonderful person she just doesn't really care about non pop culture current events including politics. She's a Black woman who has had two family members be victims of crime this year alone. In addition to that she had to drive by the same two homeless encampments every day for years without any sign that things are going to change or get better. Keep in mind she's also not reading or watching real news. Just TikTok vids. She's the one I mentioned earlier who was watching those scare tactic vids on migrant caravans. I was surprised that she would even look at something like that, but apparently her sister started sharing those sorts of videos with her. In her mind she voted because she thinks it's the best way to keep her baby safe. She also feels that she was better off financially under Trump. She doesn't understand the nuances regarding inflation and the pandemic. She's just going by her lived experience. She wasn't voting because she wanted to punish a bunch of marginalized people. She wasn't voting because she's in favor of racism or because she thinks Trump "won" back in 2020. I explained a few of the reasons I couldn't vote for Trump. I didn't go into a whole tirade about it because I didn't want to make anyone uncomfortable. I just narrowed it down knowing that he's a liar and a terrible person. I doubt very much he's going to make things better and am pretty confident it will only get worse. I should have brought up January 6th, but it didn't seem like the right moment. Anyway, I mention all of this because I feel like there's a 5th category to the ones @Dimity mentioned. 5) People who voted for Trump because they misguidedly think he will make their lives better. They don't know much about Trump or his policies apart from a few soundbites. They probably vaguely heard about him having legal troubles but figured they must not be that serious since he's still running for office. They weren't holding their noses while they voted for him because they really don't know much about him. If this election has taught me anything it's that there are *a lot* of uninformed voters in this country.

How about the policemen who died as a result of January 6th? He doesn't GAF about these people or their families, but law enforcement still prefers Trump to Harris. Same with the support he has for retired and active service people. He has made disgraceful comments about people who serve and have served our country, but they simply don't believe it even when other service people go on record saying that they heard this guy say these things about them being suckers and losers. They refuse to accept the evidence that suggests Trump has contempt for them especially those who have visible wounds and disabilities because of their service to our country. At this point I'm starting to think if he took a dump on the lawn of one if his supporters they'd just say thanks for the manure.

I think there are many people who, rightly or wrongly, assume that most politicians are liars and wouldn't necessarily trust the info from a candidate's speech or website. My guess is that there are a lot of people who go by what the people they trust have to say about politicians. There are also, of course, voters who are concerned about a handful of issues (or perhaps even a single issue) and that is enough to sway their vote whether or not they personally like candidate. Then there are the people who just go by a vibe the politician gives them. The number of people who are doing genuine research seems to get smaller with each election cycle. I knew it would be worse this time around, but he's still managed to shock me with some of these picks. It's like he's trying to make the crowd gasp. He's putting on a show and trying to be as outrageous as possible because he's confident he'll get away with it. He wasn't that far off years ago when he said that he could shoot someone in the middle of Times Square or wherever and he wouldn't lose any votes. His supporters would just say it was a deep fake or he was set up or acting in self defense or whatever. It's cult like mentality and their leader can do no wrong in their eyes. I mean, this guy can praise Hitler and still gain support among minority voters. The effect he has on people in terms of their willingness to see the best in him in spite of all proof that he's a despicable person is probably the craziest thing I've ever seen in my life. When we get to the stage where he starts firing some of these inexplicable choices, his supporters will place the blame entirely on the cabinet members who got fired. He's never taken to task for not hiring "the very best people" even though he's always promising to do exactly that. The only thing he cares about in terms of his picks for his administration is whether or not these people will be loyal and say good things about him.

This reminds me of the way Gabby Douglas was treated in 2016. All of the gymnasts except her had their hand over their hearts during the national anthem after they won for the team event. She also seemed spiritually down during that Olympics for a variety of reasons. She seemed taken aback by people being upset with her and claimed that she always stood that way and didn't know it was a problem. People pointed out that she stood with her hand over her heart in 2012, so many people assumed that she was quietly protesting something but then she denied that it was politically motivated, so she ended up in this weird position where people from both sides were unfairly criticizing her simply because she chose to stand at attention. I thought there was a lot of sexism at work here in addition to the usual racists who never miss an opportunity to chime in on this sort of topic. Gabby was criticized for not smiling enough, for not cheering on her teammates as loudly as others, for not having the bubbly energy of someone like Laurie Hernandez. I can't help but think that a man wouldn't have been criticized for stuff like that. Male athletes are commended for being strong and stoic and generally aren't criticized for not smiling if they don't feel like it. I feel like beauty pageant standards are applied to female athletes particularly for gymnastics and figure skating, and Gabby Douglas got caught in the crossfire of those unrealistic expectations.

I was hesitant to mention this being a factor too but...yeah. This goes back to my earlier post about the damage Trump did with "fake news". Now people are just picking and choosing what news they want to believe is true. With people who are anti gun control, my guess is they're especially susceptible to "alternative facts" because they need to make themselves feel better. Their position isn't just unreasonable. It's actively harmful and thousands and thousands of people are unecessarily dead because of the power of the gun lobby along with the people and politicians who support those policies. They have blood on their hands and they want to be in denial about it. They hide behind stupid slogans like 'guns don't kill people' and want to act like they care about mental health (all while not supporting universal healthcare), but refuse to do anything real about the gun laws that have destroyed so many families. It makes me sick.

Unfortunately, the gun fanatics can't be reasoned with. You can show them dozens of kids and their response is to have armed security at schools. There's no reasoning with people who think more guns is the answer to this problem. Sandy Hook was proof to me that we'll never see meaningful change when it comes gun control. If that doesn't get people to wakeTF up, what will?

I don't mind this either. Giving content proper context helps us learn, so I don't see it as a bad thing at all. What I do wish I had control of though are trigger warnings. I understand why trigger warnings exist and think that content should have them so that people aren't needlessly exposed to something they would rather not view. That being said, I personally would like to have the option of being able to either remove or show the trigger warning if I choose to do so. I sometimes find trigger warnings to be spoilery so I think it would be nice if those of us who don't necessarily want trigger warnings for certain shows or movies or whatever don't have to see them if we don't want to see them. I don't want to take them away from people who value them, but it would be nice to be allowed to have a choice with something like this. Regarding sheltering children from offensive content and imagery, it's ultimately a parental decision, I suppose, but I do think it's important for young people to have a well rounded sense of history. Not only is it important to learn from our history, but I think it's valuable to show young people how far we've come as a society. Contrary to the belief of some, we have achieved a lot in the way of social progress and it's important to remember that. We can always improve and do better, and there will likely always be new goals to reach, but we should also be proud of the progress we have made as a nation especially in comparison to some other parts of the world.

I'm also concerned about people not being willing to listen to each other. Yes, of course, there are some situations where you just have to switch off. There's no worthwhile conversation that can be had with, say, a white supremacist, a religious fanatic, a neo nazi, etc. It would be a waste of time. I do however think that we should be willing to have dialogue between people with different points of view. Those are opportunities for us to have thoughtful discussions. We can learn from each other, explain the reasons why we disagree with each other, or maybe just take the opportunity to politely correct a narrative that isn't factual. In college we're encouraged to get to know people from different backgrounds and respect different POVs even if we don't happen to agree with them. Unfortunately, the majority of people seem to prefer their respective echo chambers over having conversations with people who might disagree with them here or there, and I don't think that has necessarily been helpful to us as a society. Don't get me wrong, echo chambers can also be helpful for when you just want to sound off, express frustration, seek validation from people who share your POV, etc. I just don't think it's helpful to only have discourse within an echo chamber. @Yeah No, I do take your point about people sometimes feeling pressured by group think to the point where they won't voice a contrary opinion over fear of OTT backlash. I remember an online discussion regarding edits and censorship of books from authors who are not alive to consent to changes being made to their work. The people who had the POV that books are a product of their time and people can either choose to read them or not were criticized in OTT fashion. The feeling was that if you didn't agree that offensive books should either be taken out of circulation or appropriately edited then all civililty pretty much went out of the window. Keep in mind too, this wasn't a discussion about out of date textbooks that contain offensive, inaccurate, or out of date content. That would have been perfectly understandable. People who think LGBT+ content has no place in school libraries need to get over it. I also think that non textbook books that have "offensive" content should not banned, edited, or taken out of circulation. This is an area where the market should ultimately decide. If people no longer want to read content that they feel is offensive then they don't have to buy or borrow said content. Ideally, we can have these sorts of discussions and still feel like we're in sync when it comes to the larger issues. These are the sorts of conversations and topics that come up, and there are sometimes people who make you feel like you aren't allowed to have your liberal card anymore. If I vote for the Democratic candidate, if I support and agree with all of the bread and butter issues--healthcare, freedom of choice, separation of church and state, social safety nets, equality for all--is it really that big of a deal if I'm okay with literature that is a product of its time? Does stuff like that have to be a deal breaker?

This is what it comes down to for me with Rowling. Were there some people who bit her head off when she made the original comment? Absolutely. However, there were multiple people who approached her gently and politely, and explained the nuances of the topic that she clearly wasn't getting. One time friends and colleagues reached out to her both privately and publicly to no avail; for the most part, she simply wasn't open to genuinely listening to dialogue from the other side. Her mind was firmly made up. Maybe she was still reeling from the fact that some people harshly called her out. I have no idea, obviously I'm not in her head, but I find it very disappointing that she still seems more concerned about her own hurt feelings over the blow up than the feelings of a group that is regularly used as a punching bag and scapegoat by people on the left and right. The other part of the discussion that is troubling is how her stance gave her a new set of fans that are more than happy to tag team people who aren't okay with her position. It comes across as bullying. To be fair though, there are also some toxic people who have gone above and beyond as far as harassing Rowling about the issue. That isn't okay either and people who do that sort of thing are only giving ammunition to the person they're disagreeing with about these sorts of topics.

I agree with all of this. What I find confusing about the religious right is how often their politicians and policies would fail the WWJD test. It's a mystery how people are able to buy the idea that Trump is some great defender of Christianity. I'm not a religious person at all, but I attended Catholic school and religious studies were required. There's nothing about Trump that indicates he values any of the lessons from the Bible he likes to use as a prop. He's greedy, unmerciful, selfish, egotistical, lustful, gluttonous, a liar, a cheat, a criminal--he covets stuff that other people have, he's swayed by money and power above all things, etc. The list goes on and on with him. Harris might not be Christ like, but between the two of them, at least I don't question her basic humanity. I very much value the separation of church and state. Women get the short end of the stick too often when it comes to religion. I don't want people forcing religion into our public schools.

I agree that people on social media have actively tried to cancel people. There was a Chipotle worker named Dominique Moran who was a victim of so-called cancel culture. A video circulated about her supposedly being racist to some customers. She was fired from her job, she had her name dragged through the mud, she had thousands of people sending her cruel messages, and she's still suffering from the PTSD that came from the incident where millions of people decided that she was a horrible person based off of a misleading video. It turns out she hadn't done anything wrong at all and she was eventually vindicated, but she's a classic example of the damage that can be done when people rush to judgment to cancel somebody. When it comes to celebrities, it's typically a different situation. What some people call cancel culture, I generally think of as consequence culture. These are people who generally said or did something offensive and were called out on it. IMO these celebrities aren't canceled in the way that typical people are because they have the money, contacts, and resources to fight for their careers and reputations in a way the average person can't. It definitely isn't accurate to say that cancel culture doesn't exist, I just don't think it really applies to celebrities. The ones who are in jail or are dealing with lawsuits or charges or whatever weren't cancelled, they just had to face the consequences of their actions.

This is an interesting point. In figure skating, there was a push by a *tiny* few people to rename a couple of elements for the sake of DEI. One of these elements is a mohawk. A mohawk turn in skating is a simple move. For a right handed person you just stepforward on your right foot and turn so that you're then backward on your left foot. There isn't anything controversial about the move and I've yet to meet an Indigenous person who has felt "hurt" about figure skating moves in the field that have names like mohawk or choctaw. Nor were Indigenous people the ones behind the effort to get the names of these moves changed in the first place. When it first came up (when Skate Canada decided that they would be renaming the moves), the people I know who work in the sport generally laughed or had an eyeroll reaction because it came across like the silliest sort of virtue signaling. For decades these moves have had these names without controversy and then some people who are possibly feeling guilty about other issues regarding injustice and inclusivity, decide that these moves are part of the problem even though there wasn't much, if any, indication that anyone found these names to be offensive. To date, US Figure Skating hasn't decided to follow Canada by changing the names, and I suspect it's because there's no indication that people have been or are being hurt by them. I mention this because I think there are some people who are trying to force others into accepting that certain words are harmful when this isn't necessarily the case. I agree that it's natural for language to change and evolve. I also think there are positive changes that have successfully been integrated into every day dialogue. e.g. neurotypical instead of normal, neurodivergent instead of abnormal, etc. These sorts of changes make sense and in some cases were long overdue. I don't care about pronouns and don't really see why they're such a hot button issue. I think people have the right to be called whatever they want to be called within reason. (By within reason, yeah, if your name has 20 letters or something you're probably going to get a nickname pdq from most people.) I remember Brandeis University releasing a list (I think they took it down after a couple of years) about oppressive and ableist language that contained words people should no longer use. Some made sense and others were exactly the sort of silliness the left gets criticized for indulging too much. Words like picnic, wild, survivor, freshman, addict, etc. The unfair part is the way politicians get saddled with being associated with things that don't have anything to do with their campaigns. In the case of Harris, she was criticized over a document that used the term "birthing people" even though it's not a word that she uses and it's inaccurate to say that she's in any way trying to minimize or diminish the role of women. It's quite the opposite actually.

I agree with both of these points. In a perfect world, working class people would all be on the same side, but unfortunately we're divided. We're getting sidetracked by identity politics and other, ultimately, minor issues, and it's causing us to lose track of the bigger picture. It's also part of the cause for why we're losing important elections. We should be focused on the areas where we do have common ground and be less concerned with something like whether or not a politician looks like us because at the end of the day a person might not have a politician who looks like them, but they should always have the option of a politician who thinks like them and supports the issues they care about. People like Bezos and Musk DGAF about the working class, and the only way we can stand up to people like that is by banding together. It's so disheartening to know that people like Bezos and Musk are allowed to meddle in our elections with no repercussions. Musk was essentially allowed to buy votes and Bezos was allowed to stifle endorsements for Harris. Meanwhile, people are fighting about whether or not people have the right to be angry about the price of gas and eggs, and whether or not there are currently too many pronouns in the mix.