Poll: How do you feel about the results of the 2020 election?

[Abe]

Where’s “relieved to not have a real life Will Farrell man-child as president after January 20th?”  I didn’t see that option.

That's not very nice to Will Farrell.

Will Farrell does not deserve such insulting comparisons. He is by most accounts a very nice person.

[JetBlast]

To be clear I was referring to the man-child characters Ferrell plays, not Will Ferrell himself.  Think Ricky Bobby or Ron Burgundy. That’s Trump.

Apologies if anyone was confused by my previous post.

[dandarc]

To be clear I was referring to the man-child characters Ferrell plays, not Will Ferrell himself.  Think Ricky Bobby or Ron Burgundy. That’s Trump.

Apologies if anyone was confused by my previous post.

Still think you're being unfair to Will Ferrell's man-child characters.

[Abe]

To be clear I was referring to the man-child characters Ferrell plays, not Will Ferrell himself.  Think Ricky Bobby or Ron Burgundy. That’s Trump.

Apologies if anyone was confused by my previous post.

Still think you're being unfair to Will Ferrell's man-child characters.

Ricky Bobby is also by most accounts a very nice person. Ron Burgundy on the other hand...

[JetBlast]

To be clear I was referring to the man-child characters Ferrell plays, not Will Ferrell himself.  Think Ricky Bobby or Ron Burgundy. That’s Trump.

Apologies if anyone was confused by my previous post.

Still think you're being unfair to Will Ferrell's man-child characters.

Possible. Though I get the sense that much like Ricky Bobby, Trump thinks he pisses excellence.

[Watchmaker]

I suspect we're using different words to describe the same concepts because of our different views about their desirability or lack thereof. But it is still good we can agree on what the concepts themselves are. Cheers.

I think you're probably right. But, if we are pretty much talking about the same thing, I'm wondering what part of it do you object to?

[maizefolk]

I suspect we're using different words to describe the same concepts because of our different views about their desirability or lack thereof. But it is still good we can agree on what the concepts themselves are. Cheers.

I think you're probably right. But, if we are pretty much talking about the same thing, I'm wondering what part of it do you object to?

I see a lot of value to society in people being able to come together and work towards things we have as common goals even when we disagree about other things. I think the "silence is violence" philosophy has produced a world view for many folks where they see anyone who is not the enemy of their enemy is just another one of their enemies. Apply that same worldview across enough different topics, and you end up having an awful lot of enemies and not so many friends.

I'd also very much prefer to live in an america where people are able to separate their political, professional, and personal lives if they so choose. My perception is that the natural consequences of accepting that silence is ethically and morally equivalent to violence is a world where the separation of the professional and the political and the separation of the personal and political does not exist and cannot exist.

[partgypsy]

I think in abstract I agree with you. But it's hard when I see relatives posting that there is no such thing as racism in the US, or other such tropes, and feel I can have a reasonable non political conversation with them.

[Watchmaker]

Thanks for the thoughtful response-- it has really helped my understand the other side of the argument.

I see a lot of value to society in people being able to come together and work towards things we have as common goals even when we disagree about other things.

Unsurprisingly, I completely agree with this part. I'm really not sure there are many people that would disagree, though, including "woke" people. I certainly don't understand "silence is violence" to be in opposition to finding common ground. As an example, this story of a protest this summer captures the reasonable, "woke" position I agree with:

https://www.tauntongazette.com/story/news/2020/06/05/silence-is-violence-hundreds-turn-out-for-tauntons-george-floyd-protest/42905177/

Harris elicited the strongest response from the crowd, which consisted of people of all ages.

He used the phrase “Silence is Violence” to inspire the crowd in a chant.

"God, we're here tonight because we need you to heal our land all the way in Minnesota. We need you to heal our land in Boston. We need you to heal our land in Taunton," Harris said, to shouts of "Yes" from the protesters.

"God, allow Taunton today to be an example for the entire nation that we can come together and pray together and protest together and have peace together and change policy together and love together."

He praised police for what they do in serving the public, but also emphasized that policy changes are needed within police departments to prevent police brutality and to ensure that law enforcement is fair and not biased against people of color.

Now, I'm sure I could also go find an article with someone saying there is no common ground/all white people are the enemy/all cops should be shot. Which of those stories is more representative? I'm not sure, but I've met a lot more of the first kind. But even in the case of the second kind, I do my best to put myself in the shoes of someone who has faced real discrimination their whole life and I can understand that they might not be in the mood to sing We Are the World with me. 

I think the "silence is violence" philosophy has produced a world view for many folks where they see anyone who is not the enemy of their enemy is just another one of their enemies. Apply that same worldview across enough different topics, and you end up having an awful lot of enemies and not so many friends.

This was the part that really helped me understand your opposition to the "woke" movement. If I thought the goal was to get people to see each other as enemies, I would also oppose it. And maybe that is the goal and I'm missing something. Like I said above, I'm only judging by the people I've met or read about. But I see the main goal of "wokeness" to make people understand that we're not done fixing racism (and sexism, etc) yet.

The whole enemies thing is foreign to me--it's just not how I view politics or society.

I'd also very much prefer to live in an america where people are able to separate their political, professional, and personal lives if they so choose. My perception is that the natural consequences of accepting that silence is ethically and morally equivalent to violence is a world where the separation of the professional and the political and the separation of the personal and political does not exist and cannot exist.

Life may be easier and smoother if we can separate out those different spheres of our lives, but I'm not sure that it's better. If there's conflict between my political and personal beliefs or behaviors, then there's a hypocrisy there and I think I'm better off confronting it. I'm open to the idea that I'm missing something here, though.

[maizefolk]

I think in abstract I agree with you. But it's hard when I see relatives posting that there is no such thing as racism in the US, or other such tropes, and feel I can have a reasonable non political conversation with them.

And I can completely understand where you are coming from was well. But I do want to say that not accepting that silence is ethically equivalent violence doesn't mean you HAVE to talk to or spend time who hold political opinions that are offensive to you and are inconsiderate about advertising those views to you.

My concern is much more about relationships where we both observe a don't-ask-don't-tell approach to hot button issues like politics and religion. I have a lot more of those relationships in my life than I do ones with people posting extremist political opinions on facebook/twitter/linkedin, so those are the ones I default to when I start hearing people talking about silence equalling violence.

In my professional life, I work at a rather liberal organization in a rather conservative part of the country. The way I'm able to carry out my professional responsibilities is explicitly by divorcing my political and personal life from my "professional persona." A person who views silence on political issues to really be morally and ethically equivalent to violence would see me being extraordinarily violent to my coworkers and supervisors with political views far to the left and far to the right of mine on a daily basis.

[maizefolk]

Watchmaker, I likewise appreciate the thought you put into your own post. I think maybe there is a little more I can say about a couple of points which I'll try below, but we may be as close to seeing eye to eye on this as we're going to get. If so, thanks, I've appreciated the discussion.

This was the part that really helped me understand your opposition to the "woke" movement. If I thought the goal was to get people to see each other as enemies, I would also oppose it. And maybe that is the goal and I'm missing something. Like I said above, I'm only judging by the people I've met or read about. But I see the main goal of "wokeness" to make people understand that we're not done fixing racism (and sexism, etc) yet.

The whole enemies thing is foreign to me--it's just not how I view politics or society.

If someone is physically attacking you or people you care about, wouldn't you consider that person an enemy? Or at least someone dangerous? The equating of anyone not actively advocating for a position a woke person holds with doing violence against people is where I get the impression (from the outside looking in admittedly) that the woke appear to see an awful lot of people in the world as their enemies ... and would likely see me as the enemy if my political views ever came up or came out, which is a scary thing to contemplate when you work on a college campus.

I'd also very much prefer to live in an america where people are able to separate their political, professional, and personal lives if they so choose. My perception is that the natural consequences of accepting that silence is ethically and morally equivalent to violence is a world where the separation of the professional and the political and the separation of the personal and political does not exist and cannot exist.

Life may be easier and smoother if we can separate out those different spheres of our lives, but I'm not sure that it's better. If there's conflict between my political and personal beliefs or behaviors, then there's a hypocrisy there and I think I'm better off confronting it. I'm open to the idea that I'm missing something here, though.

Here I've left in my quote as well as your response because I think we may be talking past each other a little here. In my response to partgypsy I mentioned that I have personal (or professional) relationships with people who have different political views from me. I'm not going to change their mind, they're not going to change mine. So it's not a subject we discuss or argue about. In fact, the farther apart we are politically, the more silent we are when it comes to politics.

I have found some of those relationships personally (or professionally) satisfying. My life would be a lot emptier if I brought politics with everyone whose political views differed from mine. Eventually I'd be left interacting only with people whose politics agreed with my own. On a personal level I'd consider that a big loss. On a political level, it would mean I wouldn't be around if and when a person whose political views are different from mine really is ready and wants to talk to me about why I hold the political beliefs that I do.

I don't see anything hypocritical about the way I have chosen to live my life. Perhaps you do? But it's also quite possible that what I meant by having separate personal profession and political lives is something different from what you mean by conflict between personal and political lives.

[partgypsy]

I think I understand where you are getting at. In my relatively liberal department that happens to be set in the south one of my co-workers is politically conservative. But we get along quite well we just don't talk politics. In general people are multifaceted. I think what they mean silence is violence is if you hear someone spouting off racist, xenophobic, sexist things, and you are silent, that's complicit agreement. 

[Watchmaker]

If someone is physically attacking you or people you care about, wouldn't you consider that person an enemy? Or at least someone dangerous? The equating of anyone not actively advocating for a position a woke person holds with doing violence against people is where I get the impression (from the outside looking in admittedly) that the woke appear to see an awful lot of people in the world as their enemies ... and would likely see me as the enemy if my political views ever came up or came out, which is a scary thing to contemplate when you work on a college campus.

What I think is missing here is the idea that magnitude and context matter. Yes, I might view someone who says nothing when their racist father posts white supremacy memes on Facebook as part of the problem in that moment, but I'd also understand that that omission is a small thing. If they stood by while their father shouted racist abuse at my SO, that would be a bigger thing.

I'm an outsider to all this as well, but I think the "woke" see a lot of people in the world as being asleep to ongoing, serious problems, and they want to wake them up (at least, that was my understanding of where the term came from).

I have found some of those relationships personally (or professionally) satisfying. My life would be a lot emptier if I brought politics with everyone whose political views differed from mine. Eventually I'd be left interacting only with people whose politics agreed with my own. On a personal level I'd consider that a big loss. On a political level, it would mean I wouldn't be around if and when a person whose political views are different from mine really is ready and wants to talk to me about why I hold the political beliefs that I do.

Here's another difference in our interpretations of woke messaging--I don't understand the idea to be that you need to inject politics into every aspect of your life, just that you need to find a way to help out. For some people that's arguing with racist relatives on Facebook, for others it's protesting, for others it's donating to bail funds. I don't think you can never been silent, but that you can't always be silent.

I think our difference may stem from how charitably we are willing to interpret the woke messaging. Because the activists and protestors I've met in that community have most seemed to be kind, smart, generous and thoughtful, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. It could be that we're talking about different segments of that ill-defined community, or it could be that we've had difference experiences of them that lead you to be less charitable (rightly or wrongly).

I don't see anything hypocritical about the way I have chosen to live my life. Perhaps you do? But it's also quite possible that what I meant by having separate personal profession and political lives is something different from what you mean by conflict between personal and political lives.

I do understand what you're saying about separating professional behavior from politics (and I'm more sympathetic to that separating personal and politic behavior). But my honest answer is I probably would find some of your professional behavior hypocritical; I certainly find some of my own professional behavior hypocritical. I have made choices to balance doing what I thought was right or fair with what I needed to do to keep a job, get ahead, or achieve some laudable goal. Part of my own motivation for FI is to free myself from having to make decisions like this based on my own and my family's security.

It's rare I come away from an internet conversation both better off and happier, so thanks again. Cheers!

[rothwem]

LOL "woke".  Not sure if its just where I live, but you might as well replace the term "woke" with "n****r lover".  Its literally used a slur, just the "libtards" haven't caught on yet *wink*.  Its just more silly dog whistling that the alt right has gotten so good at doing. 

Anyways, to answer the original question in the thread, I'm thrilled that Biden won.  I don't think he'll actually get anything done, but maybe he'll cool everyone off enough that we can start making rational decisions again.  We need to address healthcare, we need to address education.  We need to address policing and we need to address racism.  What we DON'T need is the awful marketing job that the progressives in the Democratic party have been doing.  Defund the police?  What the fuck.  Calling yourself a socialist and then being surprised Republicans don't want to be associated with you? WHAT THE FUCK. By marketing policies this way, Democrats have all but guaranteed that there will be no progress on these issues. 

The best I'm hoping for is that we don't get more racist, we don't fuck up healthcare further, and that education doesn't get any less affordable.  Sadly, I think these hopes might be unrealistic. 

[GuitarStv]

Where’s “relieved to not have a real life Will Farrell man-child as president after January 20th?”  I didn’t see that option.

That's not very nice to Will Farrell.

Will Farrell does not deserve such insulting comparisons. He is by most accounts a very nice person.

He's also quite a talented musician . . . as drummer for the Red Hot Chili Peppers.

[WhiteTrashCash]

100% agree. But honestly, I lost any illusion I had about American voters in 2004.  That was the election that traumatized the fuck out of me.  Since then, I always expect the worst of American voters and therefore am occasionally pleasantly surprised. Like this year.

2004 was pretty rough for me to take too, and I thought it was the worst thing in the world... Little did I know what was to come later.....  I'd take "W" a million times over, before Trump.

I'm only 32, and my first election to vote was 2008. But I paid attention in 2004 and have since.

Having voted for both parties, the one thing that strikes me is that the media convinces both sides that if the other side wins, it's a catastrophe and threat to our democracy.

Look at how the right viewed Obama and the left McCain; same for Obama-Romney; Clinton-Trump; and now Biden-Trump. It always takes both sides to the absolute precipice of insanity.

The unfortunate reality is that it keeps getting worse and worse.

Sure, but that's mostly nonsense.  That's the media driven by viewership/clicks and providing content that furthers viewership/clicks.  Extreme supporters tend to talk the loudest so you get this very distorted view.

This is a stupid anecdote (of course!) but when John McCain died, I was with a group of about 10 or so very liberal friends after a long day of drinking and we all toasted to him as a great American with sincerity and discussed his views and his life's work and wished there were more like him.  I think the red vs. blue thing is mostly media.  When you boil it down to individual opinions (and who they vote for), it gets much more granular and convoluted.  For instance, does the candidate matter or does the party matter more?  If Trump with his personality was the blue ticket and Biden the red - would the election have gone differently?  I asked a lot of family (who are split fairly evenly politically) and friends (who are more left-leaning in general) this very question and only a few out of several dozen would've voted for Trump.  Not sure if that's an aberration or generally reflective of the population but it seems like the individual can matter more than the reductionist red vs. blue.

I think this is true, and why Biden ultimately won. Character still matters to many of us.

I am a center-left who tends to vote Democrat on policy. I considered John McCain to be a great patriot with a high level of character, and he very well may have won my vote in 2008 had he chosen a running mate who appeared to take the job seriously.

I would not have voted for Trump if he had run as a democrat.

That's really good. Most people just support their political party no matter what. I remember how Bill Clinton's behavior drew strong condemnation from the GOP and they censured him, then ran George W. Bush as someone who would bring dignity back to the White House. Then they ran Donald Trump whose behavior makes Bill Clinton look like a boy scout by comparison. Very few people actually have any real moral or ethical convictions. Most just choose their politics like they choose their sports teams.

[John Galt incarnate!]

I have found some of those relationships personally (or professionally) satisfying. My life would be a lot emptier if I brought politics with everyone whose political views differed from mine. Eventually I'd be left interacting only with people whose politics agreed with my own. On a personal level I'd consider that a big loss. On a political level, it would mean I wouldn't be around if and when a person whose political views are different from mine really is ready and wants to talk to me about why I hold the political beliefs that I do.

Sometimes siloing is the necessary antidote to censorship.

Witness the growth of Parler.

I agree that one's life is  more interesting and fulfilling when they associate with individuals of opposite views.

The tedium of the same silo day in day out is stultifying.

More to my point, I already know what dwellers in "my"  particular silo think so they cant' teach me anything new; it's more edifying  to move to a new silo  inhabited by my  opposites.

[BudgetSlasher]

Anyways, to answer the original question in the thread, I'm thrilled that Biden won.  I don't think he'll actually get anything done, but maybe he'll cool everyone off enough that we can start making rational decisions again.  We need to address healthcare, we need to address education.  We need to address policing and we need to address racism.  What we DON'T need is the awful marketing job that the progressives in the Democratic party have been doing.  Defund the police?  What the fuck.  Calling yourself a socialist and then being surprised Republicans don't want to be associated with you? WHAT THE FUCK. By marketing policies this way, Democrats have all but guaranteed that there will be no progress on these issues. 

The best I'm hoping for is that we don't get more racist, we don't fuck up healthcare further, and that education doesn't get any less affordable.  Sadly, I think these hopes might be unrealistic.

In overall assessment I fall in a similar camp. For all the needs you listed, I cannot call myself thrilled. I view this as more of a pause and a time to catch my breath, take stock, and think about where things are headed and how I might react/respond.

The parts of your post I bolded are basically my take. For the next four years we will have more rational decision making at the top; we won't go further down the current path during the next administration. But, I fear there will be disappointingly little done to walk back from where we are and what is will be slow and methodical.

That's really good. Most people just support their political party no matter what. I remember how Bill Clinton's behavior drew strong condemnation from the GOP and they censured him, then ran George W. Bush as someone who would bring dignity back to the White House. Then they ran Donald Trump whose behavior makes Bill Clinton look like a boy scout by comparison. Very few people actually have any real moral or ethical convictions. Most just choose their politics like they choose their sports teams.

This thought was the one thing that drove me to register and remain an independent. I saw too many people who I knew where smart and rational blindly follow their party without any thought (though there was one person who registered as the opposite party they identified as for the specific reason that the other party always won their district and the person wanted input in the primary that would ultimately decide the person elected). Beyond that it never ceases to shock me how a large a part of their identity people make their political party (which just seems to keep getting more and more so). I wanted to avoid that rut. 

[cool7hand]

Earlier in this thread I mentioned Glenn Loury's take. Here is a link to an article summarizing his views. While I find it persuasive, I'm always open to revising my thinking. I'm curious what others think.

https://www.cirsd.org/en/horizons/horizons-autumn-2020-issue-no-17/when-black-lives-matter---thoughts-on-the-persistence-of-racial-inequality-in-america

[cool7hand]

Does no one have anything to say about Loury's piece? I can't be the only one struggling with these ideas.

[LaineyAZ]

Does no one have anything to say about Loury's piece? I can't be the only one struggling with these ideas.

I've skimmed it, but it's a fairly long, highly academic article.  Would be great to have it summarized. 

From my reading of it he comes across as a centrist who argues that there is both a cultural and a systemic reason for how well (or not) the black population is faring in our society.

[cool7hand]

Does no one have anything to say about Loury's piece? I can't be the only one struggling with these ideas.

I've skimmed it, but it's a fairly long, highly academic article.  Would be great to have it summarized. 

From my reading of it he comes across as a centrist who argues that there is both a cultural and a systemic reason for how well (or not) the black population is faring in our society.

Forgive me, but to summarize such a thoughtful and nuanced piece is to risk misrepresenting it. It's worth the work.

[Steeze]

Half of my family are southern Baptist, pro-trump, pro-life anti-Vaxers. The other half of my family are self proclaimed Marxist, atheist, pronoun loving, polyamorous, anti-masculinity, and pro-abortion.

The woke side doesn’t speak with the religious side because they are enemies. My sister actually said to my parents, “until you vote how I vote we are enemies.” For supposedly being the most open minded and accepting person in the family she is certainly the most hateful and angry. I’m basically an evil capitalist privileged white male perpetuating the patriarchy. She actually told me that the world should exist with no gender and masculinity should be punishable.

To me, they are all unreasonable. Agree to disagree and move on.

I am happy with the election results, trump was/is an embarrassment. I fear the far left and far right narratives that have become commonplace, and am saddened by the victim mentality that is so convincingly marketed.

The world isn’t fair and equitable, some people are going to have to try harder than others. Some people will try harder, others won’t, and results aren’t guaranteed either way. Regardless, I can’t see a scenario where convincing large portions of the populations they are victims will actually help them achieve greater equity. Stoking anger  and dissatisfaction cannot be more effective than celebrating accomplishments for anything constructive. The intent is good, but I fear the psychological effects of implying everyone is a victim is overwhelmingly negative.

Anyway - I hope we can heal some of these wounds. I hope we find a true charismatic centerist in my lifetime who can re-unite the country and drown out the fringe rhetoric with love and logic. Nice to dream right?

For now, at least Biden isn’t Trump, that is good enough.

[charis]

Does no one have anything to say about Loury's piece? I can't be the only one struggling with these ideas.

I've skimmed it, but it's a fairly long, highly academic article.  Would be great to have it summarized. 

From my reading of it he comes across as a centrist who argues that there is both a cultural and a systemic reason for how well (or not) the black population is faring in our society.

Forgive me, but to summarize such a thoughtful and nuanced piece is to risk misrepresenting it. It's worth the work.

I read an article of his critiquing the BLM movement, not substance but the form, and it struck me as hardly centrist in policy ideas. As a white person, my voice is not the point, but I'm pretty skeptical of the new trend of white wokeness and lawn sign/social media performances. That black lives matter is not debatable in my book, so any retort to that concept (all lives matter) is pathetic and a distraction. Pitting police against black communities is problematic and frequently unhelpful, as not reflective of the actual opinion of poor urban neighborhoods (often not blm leaders) who are both the target of unfair policing and lacking in the adequate police presence that they need and desire. 

A lot of the (white) discussion around racism is all talk (like the conversation about whether we confront our racist uncle, etc 🙄). Behavior is what actually matters. 

Why do nice white people, without questioning it, keep talking about moving to good neighborhoods with good schools and houses that hold their value? A rich history of white supremacy that we continue to benefit from while ignoring educational inequities across the town border. And all of these good school district houses have BLM signs on the lawn.