O noes! The theme is gone!

Jeff:

This. It's the "everybody's doing it" excuse, which is something children say.

Moral/ethical relativism at work.

Jeff:

Half the country took up arms to defend slavery at one point. Does that make it morally OK?

Not at all. But half the country thought it was. Their sense of morality was different. Luckily, we killed enough of them to convince them otherwise.

If you voted for Trump, you're sending a signal that says racism is OK.

I disagree. If you don't vote for him specifically because of that, you're saying this is an absolute moral stance that trumps (pun not intended) any other qualification whatsoever. Which is fine. But not everyone is going to feel that way...obviously.

(Classic, "What if bad people do good things?" dilemma)

I'd love for someone to make an argument that racism is morally correct.

I do not possess the ability to do so. But it could absolutely be done.

And, like every single point so far, you still wouldn't have to agree, nor would it make it truth any more than your sense of morality creates truth.

But Maybe...

Lord Gonchar:

Not at all. But half the country thought it was. Their sense of morality was different.

You're arguing something we all know. But you're taking about difference in morality, I'm talking about what's right and wrong. You said yourself slavery was wrong, so clearly you know right from wrong.

Lord Gonchar:
I disagree. If you don't vote for him specifically because of that, you're saying this is an absolute moral stance that trumps (pun not intended) any other qualification whatsoever. Which is fine. But not everyone is going to feel that way...obviously.

Maybe you can explain that to the victims of racial discrimination. How do you think they'll respond? Is it any less abstract to you when it affects people that you care about?

No one, in public, with their name on it (outside of a Klepper Fingers The Pulse segment) will explain how wanting to "suspend" the Constitution, fomenting insurrection, sowing false claims about election fraud and racism is worse than any policy by Harris or any previous president of either party. It's intellectually dishonest to suggest that any of those things is the same as a disagreement on foreign policy, economic development or tax reform.

Vater:
Politicians are liars. Is voting for any of them sending a signal that lying is OK?

Cynicism aside, this is another variation on the "everybody's doing it" argument.

Jeff:

Maybe you can explain that to the victims of racial discrimination. How do you think they'll respond?

Do you think the only people who voted for Trump are white? He won a larger percentage of the black and hispanic vote than he did in 2020, so I'd say you already know how they responded. Unless you think none of them have ever been victims of racial discrimination.

Jeff:

You said yourself slavery was wrong, so clearly you know right from wrong.

No. My morals align with yours in this case. You happen to see this as "right" because of that fact.

Jeff:
Maybe you can explain that to the victims of racial discrimination

Ok. I'd do it exactly the same way.

Hey, everyone that reads this who has been discriminated against racially... Trump's stupidity is not a dealbreaker for a significant portion of voters if something perceived as more important is in play. This shouldn't be a surprise to you.

In return, Jeff, I ask what you think about all of the hispanics, blacks and women that voted Trump? (Vater slipped in on me, but I'm leaving it)

And alternatively, I ask, what do you tell all the people that felt their ability to put food on the table was threatened and then voted accordingly? Is it any less abstract to you when it affects people that you care about?

It's intellectually dishonest to suggest that any of those things is the same as a disagreement on foreign policy, economic development or tax reform.

Cool. We're still here. And this is becoming borderline tantrum. You simply refuse to accept the logic people used as valid and continue to demand answers that you're not going to get.

Wanna get really pissed:

Not a Maher guy, but...yeah.

There's no universe where I'm going to respond to Maher's pseudo-intellectual bull**** schtick. It has nothing to do with whether or not we elected a racist.

Vater:

He won a larger percentage of the black and hispanic vote than he did in 2020

So because 13% of Black voters voted for him, he can't be a racist? This is as bad as the "I have Black friends" thing. And in context to what I was saying, it doesn't even matter. Can someone say with a straight face to a person of color that they voted for a racist, but really just on the strength of his other "strengths?" Same response to Gonch.

Gonch, you keep going back to "but the voters!" I'm not arguing about what the voters did. I'm well aware of the outcome. So let me try to steer back: Is racism right or wrong? You know the answer, but you keep dancing around it because "the voters."

Lord Gonchar:
And alternatively, I ask, what do you tell all the people that felt their ability to put food on the table was threatened and then voted accordingly? Is it any less abstract to you when it affects people that you care about?

That's a strawman if I ever saw one. And I already addressed this. We can debate economic policy, but not racism. Economic policy affects everyone, and objectively, works out less for people of color. People can't even tell you what Trump's economic policy is, or how they're worse off. Unemployment is at a historic low, inflation has moderated, and the stupid anecdote about gas prices (which has nothing to do with the presidency at all) is that they're lower than they were 15 years ago, despite inflation. But sure, the racist felon can make it all better.

Lord Gonchar:
You simply refuse to accept the logic people used as valid and continue to demand answers that you're not going to get.

Wrong. I get the logic completely, and I'm saying that it's ignoring the moral implications.

None of us, not one of us, would hire a felon, racist, misogynist, found guilty of fraud in court, bankrupt multiple times, to work in our business. Not one. But 1/3 of eligible voters (1/4 of the population overall) believe that none of that disqualifies him from being president. And to be sure, the same people would change their tune if he was a Democrat. I understand all of that. I'm saying it's morally wrong. You keep saying, "But morals are subjective," and yet no one here will say racism is OK. I'll concede that maybe you don't think it's as important as [whatever policy here], and I'm saying it is the problem. Marginalizing people is the source of most of our conflict.

Jeff:

So let me try to steer back: Is racism right or wrong?

It depends on who you ask I suppose.

Vater:
Do you think the only people who voted for Trump are white? He won a larger percentage of the black and hispanic vote than he did in 2020

This does sort of baffle me. They are either completely clueless or doing what someone else told them. Or, more likely, they know that he is going to destabilize the country through his policies and desires. Yes, this will hurt them, but it will hurt white people and the rich as well, maybe this is the only way to take a stab back at the system and the country.

Jeff:
We can debate economic policy, but not racism.

We can absolutely debate racism, we just need some people who support it to debate with, and I don't know if we have any of them on this site.

Jeff:
None of us, not one of us, would hire a felon, racist, misogynist, found guilty of fraud in court, bankrupt multiple times, to work in our business.

So yeah, but the kicker for me is that if any other person did what he did they would be flat out DQ'ed for a security clearance. Yet this dude is going to walk into office next year and be given access to any TS SCI/SAP materials he desires, and that he grossly mishandled in the past. How does this work exactly?

Additionally, can someone tell me what positives he brings to the table, because I haven't been able to determine any myself.

Now finally, we can debate this all we want and discuss it until we turn blue. But it doesn't change anything, so do we accept it, or do we somehow push harder for actual change in the country to make it better for the average citizen, and not a haven for corporations and the 1%?

Jeff:

So because 13% of Black voters voted for him, he can't be a racist?

Nope. No one has said anything even close to this. Not once. Anywhere. Hell, I've even acknowledged Trump's "stupidity" - he's likely a complete racist by all definitions of the word.

Can someone say with a straight face to a person of color that they voted for a racist, but really just on the strength of his other "strengths?"

Yes, I imagine a lot of people can. Even people of color can based on the results of the election.

So let me try to steer back: Is racism right or wrong? You know the answer, but you keep dancing around it because "the voters."

Completely and unequivocally wrong. But apparently not a disqualifier what considered alongside all of the other variables as evidenced by the results of the election.

Look, man. Flat out. The racism thing wasn't what was most important to voters. It just wasn't. Why does that break you?

With that said, I'm not sure what my personal take has to do with the general philosphy of what people thought going into this last election though? Are you trying to call me racist? Are you trying to say weighing another factor greater than that in a voting decision would make me racist? My personal opinion is completely separate from the discussion we're having.

That's a strawman if I ever saw one

I just remembered why I try not to do this anymore. FFS, man.

Economic policy affects everyone...

So you do get it?

People can't even tell you how they're worse off. Unemployment is at a historic low, inflation has moderated, and the stupid anecdote about gas prices (which has nothing to do with the presidency at all) is that they're lower than they were 15 years ago, despite inflation.

You're literally the stereotype Maher talks about in the video at this point. "Look at this graph, **** your feelings!"

Here's the numbers that people voted on - and here - and here

I'm saying it's morally wrong. You keep saying, "But morals are subjective," and yet no one here will say racism is OK.

Because no one believes it here.

These things can both be true:

1. Morals are subjective.
2. We can't find anyone to say racism is ok

I'm a little confused as to why this is an issue to you. I think we all agree racism is wrong.

With that said, morals are completely subjective.

I'll concede that maybe you don't think it's as important as [whatever policy here]...

Ok. This is literally the whole thing.

More people thought other issues were more important than you did. I can't explain their reasoning, but we can explain their conclusion - other issues were more important than racism.

Marginalizing people is the source of most of our conflict.

The electorate likely disagrees based on the outcome of the election.

And before you ask, what I personally believe is completely irrelevant to the discussion - which is that not only do others think differently than you, they see the importance of issues differently and tolerate nonsense on different levels as well.

Wrap it all up, do the math, and here you are. What is unquestionably the single biggest, most important, have-to-solve-immediately-to-make-things-better issue in your mind, just wasn't for the majority of voters.

And if you want me to give you a sassy one-liner you can quote out of context to make whatever point you need to...

In the end, the voters decided that while equality is important, eating is importanter.

But they elected a dude, who most likely, will make prices skyrocket again, and cripple markets? I don't understand.

Also, eating is importanter falls in line with Maslow. So yeah, Eating is more important than racism, that is something that fits the heirarchy.

Doesn't moral subjectivity then imply that there's no basis for moral arguments or judgements? Is the entire criminal justice system (with all its flaws) really then just mob rule in the form of majority (or powerful minority) opinion and not justice at all? Doesn't complete moral subjectivity imply that there's nothing "wrong" with hurting others except that it makes a lot of people feel icky, the exact justification for a lot of oppression and denial of rights (which maybe is okay, too if enough people are okay with it?).

Coasterbuzz: Sitting in the middle of a Venn diagram between a conversation about Disney nuts complaining about "new" Epcot and Moral Relativism as it relates to US voting behavior.

This is why I've been reading here for 20 years and don't plan to stop any time soon.

Jeff:

So because 13% of Black voters voted for him, he can't be a racist? This is as bad as the "I have Black friends" thing.

Just wanted to touch this again because I missed a point.

No one is saying it makes him not racist. But those 13% are a good example of how racism mattered less than other issues to people. That's the point.

ApolloAndy:
Is the entire criminal justice system (with all its flaws) really then just mob rule in the form of majority (or powerful minority) opinion and not justice at all?

Yes. Entirely.

Is this really controversial? I mean we debate laws all the time - what we as a whole deem morally acceptable within our society. And those collective morals differ wildly between societies.

This feels like common sense.

TheMillenniumRider:
But they elected a dude, who most likely, will make prices skyrocket again, and cripple markets? I don't understand.

Apparently, neither do they.

TheMillenniumRider:

But they elected a dude, who most likely, will make prices skyrocket again, and cripple markets? I don't understand.

When the economy is not good, the incumbent party gets voted out most of the time. It doesn't make sense, and it doesn't have to for most people. This held true in recent elections around 80% of the time around the world. People voted for change, and for better or worse (almost certainly, unequivocally worse in the US, at least), they are going to get it.

TL;DR - It's the economy, stupid. It's part of what secured Biden's 2020 victory, Obama's 2008 victory, Clinton's 1992 victory, Reagan's 1980 victory, etc.

That Trump's "concepts of a plan" are widely acknowledged as policies that will make things economically worse, rather than better, is beside the point. The economy is too complex for most people to grapple with, so they pull the one lever they do understand - "change"

Lord Gonchar:

And those collective morals differ wildly between societies.

But just about every society, religion, philosophy, throughout history has some kind of tenant of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If morals really were completely subjective, that independent discovery seems like a massive coincidence.

There's obviously a huge amount of gray area around the application of thereof, but at the core, it seems like there are moral propositions that are and always have been accepted as "correct."

Guess I’ll add my word vomit to the politics cocktail.

Morality is not subjective. We can argue on the fringes, and there are some topics that remain genuinely challenging. Abortion; capital punishment; gun control; border security; welfare; I would say all of those fall into that category.

But the jury is in on the big stuff. Slavery: bad. Fascism: bad. Genocide: bad. Objectively bad. Factually bad. Otherwise, that word has no meaning. Moral progress is a one-way ratchet. Occasionally it’ll slip a tooth and snap backwards a little bit, but we as a species generally move in the right direction. Morality may not have a utopian end point, but it does have a true north. And it’s fair for some societies to observe that other societies’ moral compasses are pointed in the wrong direction. Shout out to the rulers of Russia, China, North Korea, and a whole host of middle eastern nations.

When it comes to the election, speaking only for myself: it’s not about being surprised or even confused that over half the electorate could vote for Trump. I completely understand that people think differently than I do, and that different issues matter more to different people. Trump already won it once in 2016, and 2020 wasn’t a landslide by any means. He’s maintained a stranglehold on the GOP for 8 years. So yes, I get it. Tens of millions of people were inevitably going to vote for him.

It's not surprising; it’s dispiriting. It makes me lose faith in the United States, and that’s a tough feeling to deal with. I tend to believe that most people are good, and I go out of my way to give people the benefit of the doubt. I did that 2016. Regardless of how misguided I felt a vote from Trump was at that time, I tried to be charitable and understand the opposing side’s point of view. Fast forward to 2020, and I was not granted that same charity. Instead, the losing side threw a hissy fit a backed their candidate’s attempt to take away my rights by overturning my vote for Joe Biden. I didn’t see a whole lot of soul searching from Trump voters. I saw liars, nihilists and gullible idiots shamefully try to destroy our democracy. All this in spite of the fact that Trump’s election fraud claims came about not through honest inquiry leading to legitimate discoveries, but as part of a deliberate strategy (one which he had been telegraphing all the back in 2016) to sew distrust in the election process, showing callous disregard for the inherent fragility of a system that relies so heavily on trust, since of course no one person can independently verify 150 million votes.

Those actions should’ve disqualified Trump, full stop. His political career should’ve been over. But instead, cowards in the GOP Senate elected not to convict him during his second impeachment, with Mitch McConnell incorrectly believing that it wasn’t necessary because the American people would ultimately reject him once and for all. I guess I can’t blame him too much, because I thought the same thing. So now, here we are.

And where we are is a moment in time that history will almost certainly judge to be a major American blunder. Yet when some of us try to make that observation, we’re told that we’re suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, and that this is just politics as usual; Candidate A vs. Candidate B, make your choice, and to each his own.

Nope.

Trump is openly hostile and actively menacing to everyone who opposes him. Combined with his preternatural ability to attract the attention of all media virtually non-stop, he becomes and unavoidable, nefarious figure. For those of you that are into it, this must be the greatest thing to happen in politics in your lifetime. For those of us that aren’t, it is, to put it as mildly as possible, unsettling.

I’ve struggled with the cognitive dissonance for 8 years, trying to understand how people that I know to be good and whom I love and respect, including friends, family, neighbors, and many of my colleagues, could vote for this guy. I’m over it. I’m done doing the work of trying to think more highly of people than they deserve. So here’s where I’ve landed: voting for Trump was wrong. Period. That doesn’t mean that everyone who voted for him is a bad person. Good people do the wrong thing all the time. I’ve done the wrong thing plenty of times. History is littered with examples of whole societies doing the wrong thing. And I believe American has done the wrong thing in 2024.

Please close this thread.

ApolloAndy:

But just about every society, religion, philosophy, throughout history has some kind of tenant of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If morals really were completely subjective, that independent discovery seems like a massive coincidence.

You're assuming this comes from a moral place.

Quite frankly, it's an advanced survival technique that likely didn't always exist among humans until we evolved to the point of not only understanding that sort of game theory, but also having organized societies where this became a better approach than "Every man for himself" was.

I won't be a threat to you and vice versa. One less thing we both have to worry about.

Even as it stands today, there's literally nothing stopping me from killing you and I can not genuinely say there is no scenario where I would act as such - even if it is something as unlikely as you becoming a physical threat to me.

I'm getting the impression you guys take a lot more of our societal civility towards each other as set in stone than I do. We've simply agreed that this is best for all of us. None of it is truth. None.

You have no safety net beyond the ones we create.

Bakeman31092:

Guess I’ll add my word vomit to the politics cocktail.

This entire post gets exponentially better if you play the national anthem in the background while you read it.

https://www.tiktok.com/@err...3057534238

Lord Gonchar:

organized societies where this became a better approach than "Every man for himself" was.

Most things still feel like an every man for himself approach.

Lord Gonchar:
We've simply agreed that this is best for all of us. None of it is truth. None.

Introduce some shortage in critical items such as healthcare or food, and watch everyone revert to a feral state near instantaneously. Anyone who lives in a hurricane zone afterwards should be somewhat familiar with this.

Bakeman31092:
It makes me lose faith in the United States

There isn’t much faith left to lose. We pride ourselves on being a “free” country yet we aren’t very free, we are bent to the will of large corporations seeking profits. Everything you do in your day is built around making someone else money. Very few things are free, and many choices are not truly free choices.