Whitney and Zach Bates - Part 3

[JordynDarby5]

44 minutes ago, Destiny said:

This is a truly great piece and made me think, and I probably will be thinking about it for the next several hours. Thank you for sharing it. 

 

24 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

@Snarkle MotionNo worries at all! Being passionate about things that are important is a really good thing. I just wanted to offer an explanation for why people may say what I wrote.

Thank you for sharing that! It was a pretty interesting article. I had some reservations about the show when I first heard about it. This article did an excellent job at breaking down why I felt that way when why I didn't feel that ah about Man in the High Castle (which is a fantastic and really well done show.)

Your welcome. Someone posted it on PreviouslyTV a couple weeks back. I had reservations about the show when I first heard about it too. The article brought up so much more I hadn't considered.

[Palimpsest]

Thanks to all I upvoted above for speaking my mind.  

My apologies to those I wanted to downvote and didn't.  I actually ran out of downvotes.  That doesn't often happen to me. 

I'm tired.  I'm depressed.  I'm pissed off.

This is the most eloquent statement that I can muster at the moment about Trump and Trump supporters.  Whether they are Bateses or not.

For the love of the FSM I am capable of forgiving you for voting for him.  Although I think you are somewhere on the scale of innocent, gullible, ignorant, stupid, deluded, selfish, racist, vile, and just plain evil.  Not necessarily in that order.

I'm NOT able to forgive any of you misguided Trumpians for continuing to support him today!  

Proof being in the pudding.  

[marmalade]

Steering this back to semi-topic, I don't hear/read/see anything coming from the Bateses' camp w/r/t Cheeto Benito these days. John and Alyssa may appear at town halls with Pa Webster, but his faction seems pretty content now; they got their Scalia replacement who will save teh babiezzz in their minds. And let's face it, Whitney's post is right up the right wing's wheelhouse of single-issue voters. To be honest, I doubt Trump has a real opionion on abortion, but he's playing to his base. And if there's one thing Cheeto can do, it's sell shit. Who knows what he really believes anymore? He's a fucking cypher who has morphed from a left/centrist to Bush/Cheney (esp. Cheney) terrirory in his rhetoric. The fundies are eating it up like it's the Last Supper. 

Even Dubya said he wouldn't be fooled again. I never was, but I feel for the Cheeto supporters who now feel duped with the failure to repeal Obamacare (not that Whitney gave a shit about that...I'm sure Zach has great health care). But people just wanted it repealed it because of the name attached to it, that the namesake didn't even name! I never checked, but that had Luntz written all over it. Anything to make one seethe anytime they thought of their health insurance, even if it wasn't purchased on the exchange. 

Tennessee is one of the most conservative states in the nation (top 5, I know...forget their exact standing). Whitney's vote from an almost rural exurb should surprise nobody. 

[DaisyD]

5 hours ago, crazysnark said:

The only reason I said that about the red hat thing was my husband is a former marine and said that's exactly what it reminded him of. A lot of his friend who were.are marines reiterated that same sentiment. I think it makes sense. He wanted to appeal to the vets/ blue collar type people. Again I am not sure that's what he was doing I just speculate that it could have been a marketing strategy. 

Not to be pedantic or anything but, there's no such thing as a former Marine. I spend a fair amount of time with Marines who are no longer active duty (I'm an associate member of the Marine Corps League, and have joined them in the rifle salute at funerals when they needed the numbers). Being a squid myself I can honestly say that a blue hat on a candidate would not invoke the Navy to me and have never heard any of them talk about all red being for the Corps. All of that, though, is really neither here nor there.

I'm with @nausicaa on the policy thing. I'll just say it. What fucking policy?  He never said HOW he would accomplish anything. You might consider checking out Politifact. They're a fact checking site and they've done a great job of showing exactly what is and isn't real in this crazy mess. So far, he's done a lot of taking credit for other's work (including Obama, btw) and either flat out lied or exaggerated most everything else.

[Snarkle Motion]

9 hours ago, Carm_88 said:

I think Confederacy is dealing with an issue that we have trouble dealing with. Slavery, it happened; it's a black mark on the history of the world and the US especially. Maybe if a tv show can make people open to talking abut something that makes them uncomfortable, it's a good thing. I find that we spend too much time trying to sweep the dirty parts of history under the rug. 

I am white, so I can't imagine how a POC would feel about this. It would obviously be something very, very personal and that is perfectly fine. If it is not something that you want to consider watching, that is completely fine. I would never think to assume how that must feel because I cannot. 

I generally am against censoring art. In fact, a show about the confederacy may be beneficial if done the right way in demonstrating what people were actually fighting and the atricities pertaining to slavery, instead of the nebulous "southern heritage" and the norths "economic oppression."

This was a war for the right to own people. The right to kill, torture,  rape, sell children away from their mothers, and exploit another's labor and suffering. I think a show demonstrating this could potentially be beneficial, it should also demonstrate that the majority of whites also suffered economically and were kept poor (you can't compete with wealthy individuals exploiting free labor) but enjoyed relative social status (e.g. I may be poor but at least I'm not black). 

However, I have doubts this can be done effectively with two white men at the helm. Of course people are going to be nervous that it's essentially slavery period porn. The game of thrones producers have not always handled these types of issues with tact.

I want to be empathetic to the culture and perspective of southerners. But when discussing the issue I like to point out that this was a treasonous rebellion against America and the constitution, as well as supporting a horrific institution - the right to OWN people. In today's world, what do we call calculated acts of organized violence against our country to advance an ideological agenda? 

My brother-in-law from Virginia said "what makes the confederay different than the American revolutionary fighters." Um, we won the revolutionary war. If you win, it's a revolution. If you lose it's treason. I doubt Britain has statues of George Washington and American heros from the revolutionary war that British taxes pay to maintain. We can remember history in appropriate places like museums but that's different than glorifying the confederacy in every day public spaces paid for by public tax money.

Sorry end of my long passionate rant that I'm trying desperately to rein in. 

[seraaa]

 

19 hours ago, crazysnark said:

I seem to remember Donald Trump holding up a rainbow flag at one of his rallies, and even declared he was for the LGBTQ community during his RNC acceptance speech. Just because he appoints people to the Supreme Court who disagree with homosexuality does not mean Trump is a liar in that area.

He proposed, on Twitter, kicking transgender Americans out of the military, without consulting the Pentagon and after the issue had already been considered and resolved. He's reversing the decision to have LGBT-specific questions on the census. 

He is already a liar on this issue. He's not bothered.

And the Pride flag was upside down . 

[VelociRapture]

35 minutes ago, seraaa said:

 

He proposed, on Twitter, kicking transgender Americans out of the military, without consulting the Pentagon and after the issue had already been considered and resolved. He's reversing the decision to have LGBT-specific questions on the census. 

He is already a liar on this issue. He's not bothered.

And the Pride flag was upside down . 

Thank you. I've been biting my tongue real hard over those initial comments out of respect for the Admins' request that wider conversations on politics remain in Quiverful of Politics. Trump has proven himself to be no friend of the LGBTQ+ community and anyone claiming to be an ally who continues supporting Trump... they either aren't a real ally or are willfully ignoring the facts. This is about much more than marriage rights.

ETA: It'll be interesting to see if any of the Bateses (but especially the public Trump supporters) speak out against the events in Charlottesville. I would think any Trump supporter who honestly cares about this country and others would condemn the events and Trump's stunningly poor response in the strongest terms.

[WiseGirl]

@nausicaa and @DaisyD just wanted to say I agree with you about the MIA policy and the details of how to accomplish anything. I shall now exit to Quiver full of Politics and rant over there.

[formergothardite]

10 hours ago, Snarkle Motion said:

My point about Whitney was that why would we expect her to vote different than the statistics of her region?  It seems unfair to be mad at her for voting the way that thousands of her neighbors also did, why fault her personally

I'm not giving her a pass at all. If my parents, the most republican, rural evangelical people around can look at Trump and go "Nope" then anyone can. This is the first time in my mother's life that she didn't vote republican. But despite her culture and neighbors voting for Trump, she was capable of seeing a guy who spouted racism and bragged about sexually assaulting women as not fit to be a leader. Whitney and all these other people decided to ignore the racism and the hate and justify voting for a sexual predator who clearly showed he was unfit to be a leader.  That was a choice they made and they should be held responsible for that. 

 

15 hours ago, Snarkle Motion said:

So much of what this election has demonstrated is the cultural divide between urban and rural America. Trump capitalized on anger in rural America at feeling overlooked, disrespected, misunderstood, and that they are downright struggling.

The problem with this is that it makes it seem like rural America is white America and ignores the gerrymandering and systematic stripping of non-whites of their right to vote. That is a HUGE problem. I can dig up the article if you want, about my state NC where the GOP was vicious in making it almost impossible for huge amounts of non-whites to vote. And these weren't all people living in cities. 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

13 hours ago, crazysnark said:

Yes Trump can not force Mexico to pay for the wall but he can do other things to encourage it like cutting back on trade etc. Also he might mean "pay for it" in other ways not necessarily monetary like mass deportations of illegals etc. Of course right now he is not going to come out and say exactly how because that would not be smart to let the President of Mexico in on your plan.

Or he can whine on the phone with Nieto because his refusal to pay for it makes Trump look bad. We were still laughing at that one when he thanked Putin for cutting the payroll. ETA but his plan to boost Guam's economy thanks to all the tourists flying over there to wait to be blown away by a nuke takes the cake.

Sorry dear but the sort of reasoning you showed in your post is exactly why people think you are gullible. You elected a minus habens and after months of ridiculousness you are deep in denial. I hope you will start realizing the truth before he loses a couple of wars and helps causing a devastating economic crisis as happened the last time an idiot inhabited the WH.

[nausicaa]

15 hours ago, crazysnark said:

What he did do was the travel ban and he never said he would ban all Muslims. What he did do was a travel ban. He did this because a lot of terrorists groups were coming from. If it were a true Muslim ban or if he said all Muslims will be banned the Supreme court would not have held his decision. Also A LOT more countries like Saudia Arabia and Afghanistan would be on the list if it were a Muslim ban. 

On the campaign trail he specifically said he would ban all Muslims. "Muslim ban" along with "Build a wall" and "Lock her up" were really the triumvirate of any type of formal "policies" that he had. 

On December 7, 2015, he issued a formal statement calling for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what’s going on." 

I understand not being overjoyed with HRC, I was not and am not either. However, one can criticize her actions without giving Trump a pass. 

[nausicaa]

On ‎8‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 6:49 PM, Snarkle Motion said:

My point about Whitney was that why would we expect her to vote different than the statistics of her region?  It seems unfair to be mad at her for voting the way that thousands of her neighbors also did, why fault her personally? 

But Trump voters are not the same as Trump himself. Instead of attacking and demeaning voters - which has the effect to further solidify or even intensifying their views, I seek to treat them respectfully, listen, and help them to see my perspective. Or at least I try.

I agree about Democrats needing to address these regional issues if they'd like to win any more national elections (I cannot believe how much the Dems are dropping the ball here). I also agree about the dangers of intensifying views, but at the same time, adults are adults and we all are responsible for our actions. 

I'm faulting Whitney personally because the discussion was about Whitney personally. If we were talking about Bob her Trump loving neighbor, I'd be faulting him. And Whitney is not her region. She is an autonomous individual. Am I surprised that she voted Trump? Of course not. But I will still hold her feet to the fire for it. 

I live in a town so Republican that they sell bumper stickers joking about it. My father owns dozens of automatic weapons and will only refer to Obama as "Hussein." And yet, I managed to see through Trump's utter bullshit and dangerous rhetoric. I'm no better than Whitney and so have the same expectations of her.

[Carm_88]

15 hours ago, Snarkle Motion said:

My point about Whitney was that why would we expect her to vote different than the statistics of her region?

Because everybody is doing it is an excuse for bad behaviour. I don't care how my neighbours vote. If all my neighbours decided to riot and rob a store, I wouldn't do that either. So...not that doesn't work for me. 

[DaisyD]

9 hours ago, Snarkle Motion said:

If you win, it's a revolution. If you lose it's treason. I doubt Britain has statues of George Washington and American heros from the revolutionary war that British taxes pay to maintain.

In England, it's called the War of the Insurrection. A, technically, more accurate name than when southerners call the Civil War the War of Northern Aggression. 

 

1 hour ago, nausicaa said:

I understand not being overjoyed with HRC, I was not and am not either. However, one can criticize her actions without giving Trump a pass. 

All of this.

[Snarkle Motion]

30 minutes ago, Carm_88 said:

Because everybody is doing it is an excuse for bad behaviour. I don't care how my neighbours vote. If all my neighbours decided to riot and rob a store, I wouldn't do that either. So...not that doesn't work for me. 

I'm not saying "because everybody is doing it" to excuse her. I'm saying it because blaming people personally for succumbing to propoganda and group pressure is ineffective. It misses the larger issue and making it an attack at a personal level is ineffective at changing opinions.

If you look at my original comment, I said that we should condemn her for voicing offensive opinions and vocally supporting specific political legislation - not judge her for her choice of candidate. There are variety of reasons one would support Trump and - while we can likely guess what those reasons are - I think it's unfair to judge her based on assumptions.

In terms of voting and taking up ideas of the people around you - it's a well known psychological phenomenon that you conform to your identified group. Does this make it morally right - no of course not. But it does make her human and statistically following expected patterns. Those that rise above groupthink are the exceptions.

My fathers best friend who i refer to as my uncle - his parents met in auschwitz. He believes every German who did not actively defy Hitler to be evil. I don't argue with him because of how his family was victimized. But I don't believe that. In fact, I think it makes it's so much easier to paint millions of people as just "evil" than look at the truly scary possibility that "normal" people can be made to believe and do atrocious things under the right circumstances. And of course I'm not saying that every Nazi gets a free pass and no one should be responsible. But rather we should be targeting the ideologies and systemic causes rather than blaming people at a personal level. And losing people responsible for their actions not necessarily their beliefs.

 

[Palimpsest]

9 hours ago, Snarkle Motion said:

I doubt Britain has statues of George Washington and American heros from the revolutionary war that British taxes pay to maintain.

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM9B8F_George_Washington_Statue_Trafalgar_Square_London_UK

We got over losing that war long ago.

[Snarkle Motion]

6 hours ago, formergothardite said:

I'm not giving her a pass at all. If my parents, the most republican, rural evangelical people around can look at Trump and go "Nope" then anyone can. This is the first time in my mother's life that she didn't vote republican. But despite her culture and neighbors voting for Trump, she was capable of seeing a guy who spouted racism and bragged about sexually assaulting women as not fit to be a leader. Whitney and all these other people decided to ignore the racism and the hate and justify voting for a sexual predator who clearly showed he was unfit to be a leader.  That was a choice they made and they should be held responsible for that. 

 

The problem with this is that it makes it seem like rural America is white America and ignores the gerrymandering and systematic stripping of non-whites of their right to vote. That is a HUGE problem. I can dig up the article if you want, about my state NC where the GOP was vicious in making it almost impossible for huge amounts of non-whites to vote. And these weren't all people living in cities. 

I completely agree with you about voter disenfranchisement. This was the first election without equal voting protection enacted during the civil rights era - because it was determined to be "unnecessary" in this age. It's not like white nationalists and neo nazis are still causing violent riots to intimidate people of color. 

Gerrymandering should technically not effect a presidential election, rather effect  results for congress and at the state level. However one could argue that longstanding gerrymandering allowed the GOP to get elected and to enact stricter voter ID laws that influenced the election.

I actually suspect that another way Russia influenced the election was through voter registration. It was publicly reported in the summer of 2016 that Russia hacked state voter registration rolls. All you would need to do is purge registration of known democratic supporters. Say by hacking or stealing info fron DNC voter outreach data.

18 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM9B8F_George_Washington_Statue_Trafalgar_Square_London_UK

We got over losing that war long ago.

Hahaha what a great example countering my argument. But yes, that was a gift of good will from an allied nation. Not quite the same as British citizens paying to erect monuments to remember the "war of insurrection." Thanks @DaisyD for that tidbit, never knew you called it that but it makes sense!

[Carm_88]

2 hours ago, Snarkle Motion said:

If you look at my original comment, I said that we should condemn her for voicing offensive opinions and vocally supporting specific political legislation - not judge her for her choice of candidate. There are variety of reasons one would support Trump and - while we can likely guess what those reasons are - I think it's unfair to judge her based on assumptions.

Actually you can do both. Condemn her for her religious beliefs, which leads to offensive opinions which led to voting for Trump, which has now in turn led to a great big mess. Unfortunately being concerned with taking away people's rights leads to the wrong sort of thing, who would have thought?   

[Snarkle Motion]

20 minutes ago, Carm_88 said:

Actually you can do both. Condemn her for her religious beliefs, which leads to offensive opinions which led to voting for Trump, which has now in turn led to a great big mess. Unfortunately being concerned with taking away people's rights leads to the wrong sort of thing, who would have thought?   

We live in a country with freedom of religion. This was essential to our founding. I try not to "condemn" or shame people for religious beliefs until they are actively causing direct harm to others. I disagree with a lot of her beliefs but I rather critique the beliefs than the person. Like I'm totally fine with criticizing Derick because he publicly voiced his hateful beliefs to shame and intimidate others. But he has a right to believe those things if he thinks it's part of his religion, just not act on it or attack others.

I support shaming people actively trying to convince people of their religious beliefs or hateful prejudices - this keeps them from voicing and spreading these beliefs. But I do not believe it's effective to shame people at an individual level for holding these beliefs - it does not help them to question or challenge their thinking, only to grow resentful and more convinced. 

[formergothardite]

7 minutes ago, Snarkle Motion said:

 I try not to "condemn" or shame people for religious beliefs until they are actively causing direct harm to others.

But her beliefs are causing harm. Her beliefs cause her to vote for people who do terrible things and hurt countless people. 

[Carm_88]

5 minutes ago, Snarkle Motion said:

We live in a country with freedom of religion. This was essential to our founding. I try not to "condemn" or shame people for religious beliefs until they are actively causing direct harm to others. I disagree with a lot of her beliefs but I rather critique the beliefs than the person. Like I'm totally fine with criticizing Derick because he publicly voiced his hateful beliefs to shame and intimidate others. But he has a right to believe those things if he thinks it's part of his religion, just not act on it or attack others.

You live in a country founded on religious freedom.  I do not. I think Whitney does harm is a different way then Derick. Derick wears his hate on his sleeve, Whitney and the Bates in general, tend to show the pretty aspects of their lives, like Jessa. I think it's a good point to remember that they are cut from the same cloth. 

Religion is a personal belief and the minute you start pushing it on someone else, you're harmful. I'm sorry but it's true because you are disrespecting the right of that other person to make a choice. 

[Jinder Roles]

@Snarkle Motion So you'd rather wait until a person with dangerous beliefs cause direct harm to another person before casting judgement or critiquing the person with said dangerous beliefs? I find often times that's too late. 

Now, there are different ways to go about approaching them, but it should be before someone decides to inflict harm. 

And I understand what you're getting at, and that you're concerned with people not feeling they are understood (causing more rebellion) but I'm really questioning whether a gentler and less judgemental approach changes anything. 

I've found that for example; you try to listen to the opinion and create room for open discussion w/ racists and they don't change their opinions. You call them out and they claim you're not being civil. 

Some beliefs run so deep they can't be fixed with validation and rational discourse. Because, a lot of these dangerous ideologies are built on beliefs that aren't rational and paint opposers as threats. 

[Snarkle Motion]

12 minutes ago, Carm_88 said:

You live in a country founded on religious freedom.  I do not. I think Whitney does harm is a different way then Derick. Derick wears his hate on his sleeve, Whitney and the Bates in general, tend to show the pretty aspects of their lives, like Jessa. I think it's a good point to remember that they are cut from the same cloth. 

Religion is a personal belief and the minute you start pushing it on someone else, you're harmful. I'm sorry but it's true because you are disrespecting the right of that other person to make a choice. 

Hahaha, sorry for assuming you are American. I agree that religion shouldn't be imposed on others. What's the saying, "religion is like a penis- it's fine to have one but not to whip it out and force it on others." 

That said, I think blaming and shaming people for how they vote is a dangerous precedent. Had Hilary won, I would not appreciate people shaming me for voting for her. I'd hope that they would show me the respect to exercise my democratic right to choose a candidate. If they want to debate issues with me, that's a different story. But I think its a dangerous precedent to set when we start attacking, shaming, and pressuring people about how they vote. I know people who worked in a small company who were told they'd be fired if they voted Obama and subjected to tons of anti-Obama propoganda. While this is probably illegal, they did not have the resources to hire a  lawyer or chance it. My friend voted Obama  anyway. 

however, I see how this could be viewed differently outside the US. Electing Trump had an impact on the entire world. While I believe in respecting democratic processes (with some exceptions) I could understand how the rest of the world didn't get a chance to vote and still is dealing with a trump presidency and that caused anger toward all Trump voters.

[Snarkle Motion]

30 minutes ago, Jinder Roles said:

@Snarkle Motion So you'd rather wait until a person with dangerous beliefs cause direct harm to another person before casting judgement or critiquing the person with said dangerous beliefs? I find often times that's too late. 

<snip>

Some beliefs run so deep they can't be fixed with validation and rational discourse. Because, a lot of these dangerous ideologies are built on beliefs that aren't rational and paint opposers as threats. 

I disagree with many facets of Islam and think there are some potentially dangerous and harmful interpretations (like all religions). But I do not condemn people who practice Islam. I condemn the dangerous interpretations. Religion is a deeply personal experience and relates to historical and cultural ties. To condemn people for supporting their religion does not feel fair, we should be condemning the leaders of the community and religious institutions.

I encourage everyone to listen to Meghan Phelps-Roper's Ted talk and about how she left the Westboro Baptist Church. I think this demonstrates how we can shift thinking at an individual level.

However, I also think historical factors sometime call for zero tolerance policies. The Germans banning holocaust denial and the Nazi salute is a good example. I think part of the regional and racial tensions today stems from the North being too compassionate (in some ways) towards reconciliation and not banning/penalizing states that embrace confederate symbols.

 

[Feminist_Defrauder91]

To Whitney's #thischristianvotes caption: I'm also a Christian (ebil Catholic to be exact), I voted, and I voted for Hillary BECAUSE I'm Christian.  #ThisChristianVotesDemocrat