Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Sebby is more interested in criminal-justice reform than many of us. You just have to push different buttons to get him to say that, but it comes from the same urge to be contrarian. When people talk about major party candidates, his contrarian impulse requires him to say that he votes his wallet, just to deflate the idealistic pretensions any of us might have that our vote would somehow make a difference in the world. When people talk about crimes in the news, his contrarian impulse requires him him to point out that the criminal justice system is unfair, just to deflate the idealistic pretensions any of us might have that wrongdoers are punished.
Sebby definitely gives a shit about what other people think. If we didn't have idealistic pretensions, he would not be able to deflate them. He's not a conservative, but what he shares with conservatives is a preoccupation with what his peers (a/k/a "elites") are thinking, and a desire to take them down a notch or two. But he does believe the criminal-justice system is unfair and thinks it should be more fair, unlike most conservatives, who generally like the way it perpetuates traditional heirarchies.
|
This is a bit tortured.
In this instance, I very much care what Hank is thinking because the argument third party voters caused Clinton to lose, and didn't have a right to vote as they did, is total bullshit.
Trump and Hillary caused Hillary to lose. Trump because he tapped into a brilliant marketing strategy at exactly the right time. Hillary because she blundered through the campaign and failed to shore up the Blue Wall.
Hank's deflection has lacked logic from the start. And the whole whinefest about how Hillary lost because of actions of others has irked me from the start. So I wound up committing a logical fallacy myself: ad hominem. But I don't disown it. I will always believe there are hidden economic motives and social/class anxieties woven through almost all of the impassioned arguments about politics.
To think there are not, I would have to assume none of the Trump voters I've met harbor hidden, perhaps unconscious motivations. Neither you nor I would say that. We couldn't. Nor could anyone else here, as we've all held forth on the secret motives of Trumpkins. Can you credibly say that only one half of this country - the Trumpkins - harbors self-interested motives re politics? Your side is exactly and entirely what it says it is, while their side is the only group with behind-the-scenes agendas?
This whole thing started with Hank citing the Left's "fake news." I'll grant you the Right is far more dishonest about its motives. But are you seriously asserting there weren't economic concerns baked into the decision to vote for Hillary? Of course you can't say that. The only question is how deep those motives run. That, we'll never know.