“Good for you for acknowledging that it was "in poor taste." What do you want fron us? A cookie? A pat in the back congratulating you for how well you handled this? Please, this thread is just the final straw in a series of ridiculous, asinine posts that many of us associate you with. Hence why we feel so confident naming a piece of sh!t person when we see one. Seriously, change your avatar and stop using Sondheim references to justify your piece of sh!t actions.”
Well, thanks for asking. I’ll respond to that within the context of a wider discussion of this thread and my relationship with this forum.
Let me first say that there were a couple of motivations for posting this thread and in this thread (just as I posted in the Sanders vs Clinton thread, and I consider this thread a footnote of that) – my #1 motivation is trying to reach the truth though. I can relate to henrikegerman’s suggestion that people want to know things (and maybe especially the things that are most difficult to know). I do have a strong desire to seek out an understanding of whether the claims I make and others make are true, how the world really works etc. etc. I really wanted to know during the primaries (as some of us discussed on this forum relentlessly) and even now the answers to questions like who would have been more likely to defeat Trump in an election. It is hard to definitively provide an answer to these questions with certainty of its truth, but we do have information that can help us reach some conclusions about this (as discussed earlier in this thread).
As already said a couple of times, I acknowledge that the timing/context/some of the content of the post has caused a lot of emotional distraction and in hindsight I would take out the trolling “told you so” phrase and rephrase it so that it simply does state that I think we wouldn’t be in this position had Bernie Sanders been nominated for reasons already discussed in this thread (polling data in combination with good theoretical/causal reasons of why this data could be accurate around perception of trustworthiness, no involvement in criminal investigation and being an ‘outsider’ like Trump. Plus, the unfortunate reality that as a man he might have some advantage over Hillary in our somewhat sexist world – though his gender is not why he should have been the nominee nor did gender bias play a role in many of the important criticisms of Hillary).
Now, what do I want by acknowledging these criticisms of this thread? I don’t want anything – I don’t want a ‘cookie’ - it was simply me showing the respect that I actually listen to what some of you have said and acknowledge the truthfulness of the criticism. In my search for the truth, I intentionally do listen to and try to understand what people are saying and why they are saying it – and I want them to know that. And by acknowledging the criticism, hopefully we could have moved onto what is actually an interesting discussion and that is the topic at hand: did Hillary voters lead Trump into the white house by not voting for Sanders then they had the chance? I would have hoped that given I have posted on this forum for what is probably coming up to close to 10 years, people would know that I actually want to engage in a genuine discussion – I’m not one of those crazy trolls that seem to come here and post the same topic 100 times making no rational sense, as someone called “HopesS” is doing right now on the main board. What a waste of time.
Based on my experience in this thread, the Sanders vs Clinton thread and broader life experiences when it comes to uncomfortable questions like this – I have found that some people actually can’t emotionally cope with discussing uncomfortable facts (I will give a few examples soon). If there is something I would wish upon this forum (and the world more generally), it would be to really try and engage with the question at hand (as some have done and did in the Sanders vs Clinton thread, but not all) and think about, without emotion, the arguments that are presented and their merits. If you don’t want to know the answer to a question such as the one I’d hope to discuss in this thread, that’s fine – no need to participate. If you find the mere fact that this question is being asked offensive, I find it incredibly puzzling - I don’t think we should ever shy away from the uncomfortable truths.
Some examples of really unfortunate experiences I had in the Sanders vs Clinton thread – by simply discussing objective facts I was met with the most emotional, biased, irrelevant and sometimes hateful criticism that had nothing to do with the topic at hand. For example, by discussing some of the objective facts I am about to list, I have been met with racism, described as a sexist (where there is none), an idiot [I find this one very ironic given my opponents sometimes], been met with ageism etc.. etc.. – like Michelle Obama says though, my general approach is to ‘go high’ because I could care less about personal criticisms or attacks – I want to find the truth and all of this personal attack nonsense is such a waste of time (sometimes I wonder if I slip when provoked, but generally I am pretty clean here if I recall my posting history).
Some of the objective facts that some people seemed to be uncomfortable discussing if I recall correctly include: Hillary flip-flopping or taking back actions taken several issues throughout her career – Iraq War/Trade/Gay Marriage/Bankruptcy bill (for example) – the latter of which Elizabeth Warren herself criticised as an example of someone whose constitutes were Wall St, a large criticism of Hillary during the Primary and General election [if you need more evidence about Hillary and flip flopping, go and read the Pulitzer Prize winning site politifact.com); pointing out that Bernie’s policies can and do work in many other western countries in the world (e.g., high minimum wage; accessible education; universal healthcare) and that the USA is slipping behind in income, healthcare and education compared with other Western countries; pointing out objective facts that the voting public [as measured by polls] found Sanders to be a lot more trustworthy than Hillary and Trump, which could potentially be explained by her involvement in criminal investigations (whether innocent or guilty), and her refusal to release her Wall St speeches (and then the content of that when she did, such as her ‘public’ and ‘private’ position); Bias throughout the Primary campaign (e.g., being given debate questions before the debate)
Almost everything in that last paragraph is pretty much undisputedly true (except perhaps the reasons why she was perceived as untrustworthy, though I think anyone would be a fool not to acknowledge the kind of situations I described might contribute to it). Search critically on google for any of those issues if you aren’t convinced. The truth of those statements does not necessarily mean that Sanders would have made a better president Yet, in discussing on this forum – some people cannot handle hearing those truths. They can’t handle this criticism because they are so emotionally involved and biased they don’t wish to seek the truth, but confirm what is only true to them. This was not everyone, of course. Some people responded with appropriate criticisms such as Bernie Sanders would never get anything done, or that the particular issues I raised weren’t important. A genuine discussion. But for the posters who didn’t engage with what I was saying and simply resorted to racism and name-calling – what a waste of everyone’s time. I remember someone used to keep harping on about how much I “HATE” Hillary Clinton – which is not true at all. There is nothing personal – I didn’t know much about her policies or political behaviour/decisions before looking into this process, and I didn’t know anything about Bernie at all (in fact, I watched the debates blindly thinking who is this old man thinking he can compete with Hillary). It was simply by gaining more knowledge of her policies AND some of her behaviour as a politician, and gaining more knowledge of Bernie’s policies AND his behaviour as a politician that I made the conclusions I made.
On a side note: It's a bit like religion. Some people just can't handle the truth that their religion is likely wrong. We know that at the very least (and this is being very generous here) the majority of religions are wrong because they are mostly contradictory (there can't be one God AND many god; Jesus can't have been the son of Christ AND not; Mohammad can't be the final profit AND not etc.. etc..). Some people have no interest in understanding the truth - they don't want to hear it. And if so that's fine, but I wish they wouldn't participate in a discussion unless they want to really try to think about the truth.
I did regrettably invoke it, but some of the responses in this thread (and I notice the worst have been deleted) is just a clear example of how emotionally involved people get with particular issues and how badly it can disrupt their thinking. The mere fact that I suggested it was (and it may actually be) true that Hillary voters led to this outcome caused someone to say they wish I were dead?
Some people have attempted to genuinely respond, and I respect them for that. This is the kind of discussion I want to have, even if maybe it is futile. For example, when someone suggests that “polling means nothing” I do find this interesting. It is true that the polls have not been super accurate at times. In terms of primaries though – with a few exceptions the polls were often quite accurate. In terms of the general election, the polls did get it quite wrong but the idea that Hillary would get the popular vote was predicted and came true. Some polls back in the primary also predicted this outcome would happen back then, which is true. It’s probably too strong to say it “means nothing” but rather acknowledge it is fallible. So what do we do with fallible data? We evaluate the data sources (e.g, the margin of lead, the consensus of different samples etc.) and most importantly bring in theoretical/causal reasons to explain why it could be true. To completely dismiss all data when making decisions, even if flawed, seems like a dangerous mistake to me and not something anyone would want to do if they take a scientific approach to decision making (unless there is a very good reason to).
Speaking of theoretical/causal reasons, someone also somewhat engaged and mentioned that the issue is that because Sanders is a Jew the rural Trump voters would never vote for him. Also an interesting idea, it leads me to ask: are they the voters that need to be convinced for a hypothetical Bernie to win? What about the voters that abstained from voting (most importantly), what about the stupid Sanders voters that went to Trump instead of Hillary? The voters that went to a minority candidate or wrote someone in? etc etc. In other words, the path to winning a general election in my mind isn’t necessarily through convincing rural Trump voters to switch to Sanders instead.
That is the kind of discussion and questions I think are useful not wishing me to die, not calling me a “piece of sh!t”, “clueless” or any other waste-of-time personal attacks that in my mind, say more about you than me.
Now, what is my future on this forum? It’s quite interesting to me that someone has asked me to take down my avatar, stop using Sondheim references and describing my posting history as consisting of a ‘string of asinine posts’. Um? What? First, let me say that the Sondheim reference was not to ‘justify my actions’ but to potentially justify the actions of Hillary voters (the choice may have been mistaken, the choosing was not), and I can’t see the relevant of my avatar at all here. Second, re: my ‘string of asinine posts’, it’s hard to know exactly what you are referring to. If you mean Clinton vs Sanders, well I think we know my position now on that and what I think to how people react to them on this board. If you mean more generally – I enjoy participating on the Broadway main board – I love professing my incredibly biased love of Bernadette Peters (and as I’ve said, even though I’d replace Ebersole tomorrow with Bernadette if I could, there is no way Bernadette could do “Pink” like Ebersole does in War Paint, which is a marvellous achievement – I look forward to posting more about that when War Paint previews start). I liked recently accusing A8 of being a Sondheim lover given he seems to know Sondheim so well, haha. I’m looking forward to discussing how Sunset Boulevard sales are going (at the moment, it’s not looking good). Looking forward to discussing the Hamilton Mixtape. 5 years ago I enjoyed being one of the first to comment on the new dress in FOLLIES and mention that Linda Lavin’s replacement was doing great! And when PJ claims that Bernadette sings too self-indulgently slow in FOLLIES again I’ll make sure I remind him that in he holds a metronome next to the OBC recording of Follies and the revival recording of Follies, he will find that some songs (e.g., particularly IN BUDDY’S EYES) are much closer to that as written on the actual score.
My point is that these (my posts on the main board, generally) are such harmless comments and posts that I enjoy and will continue to enjoy for as long as I can – no, I’m not going to remove my avatar or stop posting. They actually have nothing to do with my political views. We really need to stop taking things so personally I think. For example, Ebersole is actually an awful unscientific anti-vaxxer republican. While much of the world is mourning at the moment, she is likely celebrating. But it doesn’t have much to do with her performing and I just let it be. There doesn’t need to be a need to classify someone as “completely good” or “completely bad” (see: halo/horn effect).
If you don’t like my posts, you can of course ignore them or do block me (I won’t block any of you though). I’m not one of the crazed spammers or trolls that everyone seems to block – I think about what I am going to say and I have a reason for saying it. I hope that the people that continue to read my posts do so because they appreciate that when it comes to an argument, I will be thinking about it – and I will be mostly focusing on the arguments presented. They know that I'm not 'clueless' or an 'idiot' because they actually read what I say and don't have a strong emotional bias against the content I am discussing. Expect this, some occasional cage jabbing, hopefully some humour and a whole lot of love for Bernadette Peters and Sondheim. If you can’t be bothered to really read my posts or don’t care about what I am talking about please do ignore them though – there is no need to waste all of our time.
Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.
Updated On: 11/10/16 at 05:34 AM
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
