Resistance Intimidating Trump Supporters

[Neoteny]

I never took you to be the SJW, safe-space, thought police, Greek.

[2dimes]

I have had my feelings hurt. It was not ok but that's life.

I never understood someone getting over active and turning militant in defense of minorities. If it was less militant Iwould agree it is a noble cause.

I think Safe Spaces are awesome as long as they truly are safe spaces.

I read that some colleges provided pizza and brought in comfort dogs when the Donald won the election.

Yeah it's a bit silly but who wouldn't like a slice of pizza and time with a happy dog?

[thegreekdog]

I never took you to be the SJW, safe-space, thought police, Greek.

Think of me more like the hypocrisy police and the racism police.

[Neoteny]

All perfectly normal and useful professions. But might I suggest that, if you don't even know who Mike Cernovich is, maybe Twitter-brand irony isn't in your jurisdiction Mr. Thought Police.

[thegreekdog]

All perfectly normal and useful professions. But might I suggest that, if you don't even know who Mike Cernovich is, maybe Twitter-brand irony isn't in your jurisdiction Mr. Thought Police.

Probably not... is Twitter-brand ironic racism acceptable now? Is it acceptable to all or just a subjective few?

[Neoteny]

Ask Jeong, I guess. But, as a white person, I applaud your efforts to stave off the terrible racism and discrimination that white people have to endure. Nobody really ever considers our feelings. Also, I'm happy for your gig with The Spectator. Congrats.



In all seriousness, I can't get behind the idea that tweets like "white people think toothpaste is spicy" is the sort of statement that justifies concerns of racism within the context of current and historical racial inequality and repression that the US in particular, and the world at large more generally, have taken part in. To feel the need to call it out as hypocritical, much less racist demonstrates a myopia that would be mind-blowing were it not so prevalent. Are there people racist against white people? Of course. We've done enough that I would be surprised if there weren't. Is formulaic Twitter humor racist? To a pedant, maybe, but it's so often used within a context of commentary on white hegemony (because Twitter, second probably only to Tumblr, is the land of the woke), that only someone who deliberately misreads it or who has no context for it would take it seriously enough to put on a pig's nose and look down it at the joker and tut tut about the discourse.

White people. We should probably cancel them.

[Dukasaur]

In all seriousness, I can't get behind the idea that tweets like "white people think toothpaste is spicy" is the sort of statement that justifies concerns of racism within the context of current and historical racial inequality and repression that the US in particular, and the world at large more generally, have taken part in. To feel the need to call it out as hypocritical, much less racist demonstrates a myopia that would be mind-blowing were it not so prevalent. Are there people racist against white people? Of course. We've done enough that I would be surprised if there weren't. Is formulaic Twitter humor racist? To a pedant, maybe, but it's so often used within a context of commentary on white hegemony (because Twitter, second probably only to Tumblr, is the land of the woke), that only someone who deliberately misreads it or who has no context for it would take it seriously enough to put on a pig's nose and look down it at the joker and tut tut about the discourse.

I can't parse the complexity of that paragraph. Maybe I'm just tired.

What you seem to be saying is that it's okay to tell jokes about white people. I agree, it is. But I would also say it's okay to tell jokes about non-white people, and you seem to be saying it isn't.

To me, this doesn't require big words like 'formulaic' or 'hegemony'. It's super simple, and a five-year-old could explain it. Either both are bad, or both are good.

I happen to think it's okay to make jokes about anybody. It's okay if you don't agree, but try to be consistent. If ethnic jokes are bad, then they're bad for everybody.

[thegreekdog]

Ask Jeong, I guess. But, as a white person, I applaud your efforts to stave off the terrible racism and discrimination that white people have to endure. Nobody really ever considers our feelings. Also, I'm happy for your gig with The Spectator. Congrats.



In all seriousness, I can't get behind the idea that tweets like "white people think toothpaste is spicy" is the sort of statement that justifies concerns of racism within the context of current and historical racial inequality and repression that the US in particular, and the world at large more generally, have taken part in. To feel the need to call it out as hypocritical, much less racist demonstrates a myopia that would be mind-blowing were it not so prevalent. Are there people racist against white people? Of course. We've done enough that I would be surprised if there weren't. Is formulaic Twitter humor racist? To a pedant, maybe, but it's so often used within a context of commentary on white hegemony (because Twitter, second probably only to Tumblr, is the land of the woke), that only someone who deliberately misreads it or who has no context for it would take it seriously enough to put on a pig's nose and look down it at the joker and tut tut about the discourse.

White people. We should probably cancel them.

What's The Spectator?

Seriously though... Do you understand that the vast majority of Americans whether they vote blue or red are largely unconcerned with Twitter and wokeness? And that these "normal" people would view some of things people throw about in the name of wokeness as racist? Whether or not people should be cognizant of the past crimes of their particular color is almost entirely irrelevant. People tend to view themselves based upon what they've done in their own lives. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics for, say, the grandson of an Irish immigrant, to say "Well, people that had the same color skin as me did [racist thing] so it's okay that someone with a different color skin as me said [racist thing] and not only should I not be offended, but I should support that person's viewpoint so that I may both woke and to not offend anyone else."

And let's talk about context. When has context ever mattered to the land of the woke (I mean, apart from whether the person doing the speaking or tweeting is on the woke team)? Seriously. Candace Owens (a black conservative) tweeted Sarah's tweets but changed "white" to "black" and she was banned from twitter (she is also the same woman who was unironically yelled at for being a Nazi and a racist by a bunch of white people here in my home town). I'm not defending Candace Owens; I don't know her and I don't follow her. But definitely tell me again how context matters.

And let's talk about white hegemony (the assumption being that it exists and is a thing). What do you think our effective ways to either end white hegemony or co-exist? Do effective ways include cancelling white people (or at least demonstrating wokeness on Twitter)? Does anyone seriously think that will work? Or is the idea not so much to kill or co-exist with white hegemony, but to just throw things at it?

Finally, I leave you with these...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/h ... cants.html
https://www.newsweek.com/ruby-rose-lesb ... sy-1071046

And yes, I've made the jump from Sarah Jeong doing her thing to Harvard's new affirmative action plan and the idea that someone is not Jewish or lesbian enough to be Catwoman. They are absolutely related. Don't @ me.

[Neoteny]

Edit: I got fastposted. This is mostly at Duk.

Now you've done it. Neoteny rant incoming.

I trust greek to be able to handle a couple of big, scary words. He's at least earned that.

I didn't even mention jokes about other races at all. It's a criticism specifically of the idea that jokes about white people is racism, especially when taken out of the context of the seemingly ever present discussion of identity politics that makes up a large proportion of Twitter discourse (on top of being involved in gamergate nonsense; a notoriously chill contingent) and also considered within the broader context of white people not being historically or currently discriminated against in the US, despite the concerns of Mike Thernovich. Does your hypothetical five-year-old understand context?

But I'm happy to throw my hat into that ring anyway, because the context is important here too. Like ol' spurgy mentioned earlier, saying "black people are canceled" strikes a little closer to home when one considers the history of black people in the US. It's a touch more sinister. Recognizing context is the key to doing good humor, even if it isn't ethnic. And the context is that, right now, our society is hashing out some issues regarding race where, historically and contemporary, white people have discriminated against and repressed non white people.

This is the exact reason why certain language, like the n-word, which I assume you don't use, is now taboo for white folks. There's no reason this shouldn't also apply to humor. There is nothing culturally superior about comedy that elevates it above criticism. Which is to say, you can make ethnic jokes, but if they aren't damn thoughtful jokes, you're probably going to cross a line. Something white people struggle with so much, like with the n-word, is the idea that some things aren't for them anymore. The whole idea of reverse racism spawns from this. Sorry Duk, you shouldn't make watermelon jokes anymore. You can do it all you want, but don't be surprised when people don't want to hear it.

All this loops back around to your hypothetical five-year-old. One could forgive a young child for thinking that all jokes are created equal. Jokes are jokes, right? As long as you say you were kidding afterward, everything is OK. But to hear it from a grown-ass man or woman is staggering. That's not how it works in the discourse you nerds love so much. I hesitate to make the "ask your wife" joke here, but it may be the only explanation you understand.

Hopefully you could hear the last two paragraphs over the howling of "HYPOCRISYYYYYYYYY" resonating from whichever compass direction thegreekdog currently resides in relative to you. And he may actually be right, in the pedantic way he often is. But, again, that double standard stems from decades (centuries? ) of that dreaded context you want to ignore. Trust me, black people know that they can make certain ethnic jokes, and white people can't. It doesn't actually harm you, and until it does, just laugh at the jokes. Because a lot of them are really funny.

Putting on the mantle of hypocrisy pig that goes around handing out citations to non white people for making jokes about their historical oppressors is its own special form of hubris. "I've got a black friend so I can make these jokes" has come a long way.

Get some sleep, Duk.

[thegreekdog]

I trust greek to be able to handle a couple of big, scary words. He's at least earned that.

Thumbs up!

Trust me, black people know that they can make certain ethnic jokes, and white people can't. It doesn't actually harm you, and until it does, just laugh at the jokes. Because a lot of them are really funny.

Yes, this is accurate.

Honestly Duk, I don't really care about Sarah Jeong's tweets. They really didn't hurt anyone. What I do care about are facts and how those are read and interpreted by the current generation of utter morons that currently reside in our country (e.g. those people who think Asians shouldn't get into Harvard because it's not fair and that the Jewish lesbian playing Catwoman is not Jewish or lesbian enough or that it's okay for a white college student living off their capitalist parents to yell "racist" at a black woman while filming with their iphone or that socialism is a thing that works or that Medicare for all can be paid for by cutting military spending) or if you want me to reverse (e.g. those people that think there is a real thing called "alternative facts" or that the media mischaracterizes Donald Trump or that Black Lives Matter should be All Lives Matter or that kneeling at football games is somehow a sign of disrespect for the military or that tariffs are good for the economy or that global warming isn't a real thing).

[Neoteny]

What's The Spectator?

I'm beginning to see why your opinions on humor are so broken. You, uh, you know I don't actually think you write for a weekly British political rag, right?

Seriously though... Do you understand that the vast majority of Americans whether they vote blue or red are largely unconcerned with Twitter and wokeness? And that these "normal" people would view some of things people throw about in the name of wokeness as racist? Whether or not people should be cognizant of the past crimes of their particular color is almost entirely irrelevant. People tend to view themselves based upon what they've done in their own lives. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics for, say, the grandson of an Irish immigrant, to say "Well, people that had the same color skin as me did [racist thing] so it's okay that someone with a different color skin as me said [racist thing] and not only should I not be offended, but I should support that person's viewpoint so that I may both woke and to not offend anyone else."

If they were unconcerned with Twitter and wokeness, they probably wouldn't care about woke Twitter jokes, right? This has clearly touched a nerve with the boomer cohort you identify with. So tell me greek, does Twitter wokeness bother you? Why are white people so worried about being canceled?

And let's talk about context. When has context ever mattered to the land of the woke (I mean, apart from whether the person doing the speaking or tweeting is on the woke team)? Seriously. Candace Owens (a black conservative) tweeted Sarah's tweets but changed "white" to "black" and she was banned from twitter (she is also the same woman who was unironically yelled at for being a Nazi and a racist by a bunch of white people here in my home town). I'm not defending Candace Owens; I don't know her and I don't follow her. But definitely tell me again how context matters.

Anyone who's been on Twitter knows that Twitter itself is the worst when it comes to who they ban and how they do it. You won't hear a complaint from me there. They also don't ban most harrassers and trolls, but if you change your username to "Elon Musk" you're instantly flagged for a vacation.

And let's talk about white hegemony (the assumption being that it exists and is a thing). What do you think our effective ways to either end white hegemony or co-exist? Do effective ways include cancelling white people (or at least demonstrating wokeness on Twitter)? Does anyone seriously think that will work? Or is the idea not so much to kill or co-exist with white hegemony, but to just throw things at it?

Jeong is your typical woke Twitter personality and I am definitely of the mind that social media activism is not real activism. I'm not really defending that her dumb Twitter jokes are accomplishing anything. Just that they're dumb Twitter jokes and that's ok.

But yes, there are a lot of people who think posting is important, and most of them are still complaining that Bernie Sanders cost Hillary the election.

Finally, I leave you with these...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/h ... cants.html
https://www.newsweek.com/ruby-rose-lesb ... sy-1071046

And yes, I've made the jump from Sarah Jeong doing her thing to Harvard's new affirmative action plan and the idea that someone is not Jewish or lesbian enough to be Catwoman. They are absolutely related. Don't @ me.

#cancel@thegreekdog

[patches70]

hahaha, I can't believe you are using "woke". It's a dead meme, ya trying to bring life back to it or something? Sorry but that ship has sailed.






Bwahaha, anyway, keep up the good fight against the fascists under the bed. I'm rootin' for ya!

[Neoteny]

Love too be triggered by ironic references to identity politics Twitter. Talk about protesting too much...

[mookiemcgee]

You guys should check out switter, the post are much more entertaining. fake Burn knows what i'm talking about...

[patches70]

Sorry man, I don't have twitter, don't ever read anything on twitter, or facebook, twitch or whatever. So I'm not really sure exactly what you are talking about, you're like a teenager who has just discovered Nietzsche or something and think you are enlightened. And that's cool, life experience, you'll get there eventually. I just found it funny you saying "woke". It makes me laugh. My teenage kids would smack me if I ever used "woke" the way you do because they think it's stupid and a dead meme, and they don't like people using dead memes is all.

An interesting note, which you should find...enlightening. The very first ever use of "woke" in the context you are using. It ain't what ya think! I'll have to put it in spoilers because some people might get all sensitive about it.
So you easily offended open the spoiler at your own risk, I didn't write it, I'm just showing you all a little history.

Spoiler

"No Mickey Mouse can be expected to follow today's Negro idiom without a hip assist".

Yep, the term was first used way back in 1962 from an article in the New York Times. That's the origin of your term and here you are in 2018 using that same term blissfully unaware of where it comes from. May 20th, 1962, it was a different time back then I suppose. I can definitely see why that'd be offensive in this day and age.

So stay woke brother!

[Neoteny]

Lol your teenagers are memelords, eh? How fitting. I'd say let them take over your account so that they could recognize that when I say "land of the woke," and all the other references I make, I'm being a bit pejorative, but, frankly, I'd expect them to be as dumbshit as you are. I also suspect you saw "woke" once and stopped reading as your blood pressure shot through the roof and proceeded to throw your kids under the bus as teenagers who are still concerned with the sanctity of teh memes. Do you not let them play Fortnite or something?

Language is a crazy thing. Shame your reading comprehension is lower than your children's.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Man, she got caught up back in '16 in some weird gamergate/left-Twitter hybrid monster that I can vaguely remember being really tangled and dramatic and nonsensical and some collateral from that was her celebrating a guy getting fired from somewhere for his own Twitter activity and now Twitter is doing it again and it's all entertaining but I feel like I'm still missing a lot. I'm not sure people's jobs should be at risk for Twitter activity, especially since the nature of the beast ensures that the context is nearly impossible to follow, especially when you start going deep.

Y'all remember gamergate before they eventually just came out as fascists?

I'm less concerned about individual scenarios; just replace "white" with "black" in her tweets and the blue team has a completely different view on this woman.

I'm more focused on the idea that a small but vocal superminority can effectively shout loud enough for Disney or the New York Times to listen. Companies can do what they want, but it's disappointing that these responses are rarely measured and seem a reaction to that vocal superminority. Also, there's the hypocrisy (which I can't abide, but I understand).

Replace white with black and you refer to a hell of a lot more experiences. Historically, "cancel black people" is a thing that happens, "cancel white people" isn't. When people say "kill blacks/Muslims/Jews/untermenschen" (it's such a long list) they do that enough of the time that you gotta take it seriously. "Kill/cancel white people" is just flipping a script in a way that never happens in real life so it's not taken seriously. Was anybody scared of this reporter stoking anti-white violence? In the same way that when somebody tweets "cancel black people," black people (and people racists think are black) can rightfully be scared for themselves and of this person?

Anyways, Mike Cernovich (the guy who "outs" these tweets from years ago) is just a dude who's pissed that he can't use the N word. That's like his whole thing.

Women are raped and sexually assaulted at rates many times greater than men, therefore rape and assault against men is fine because it almost never happens.

That's great. Excellent argument, slick.

[spurgistan]

Man, she got caught up back in '16 in some weird gamergate/left-Twitter hybrid monster that I can vaguely remember being really tangled and dramatic and nonsensical and some collateral from that was her celebrating a guy getting fired from somewhere for his own Twitter activity and now Twitter is doing it again and it's all entertaining but I feel like I'm still missing a lot. I'm not sure people's jobs should be at risk for Twitter activity, especially since the nature of the beast ensures that the context is nearly impossible to follow, especially when you start going deep.

Y'all remember gamergate before they eventually just came out as fascists?

I'm less concerned about individual scenarios; just replace "white" with "black" in her tweets and the blue team has a completely different view on this woman.

I'm more focused on the idea that a small but vocal superminority can effectively shout loud enough for Disney or the New York Times to listen. Companies can do what they want, but it's disappointing that these responses are rarely measured and seem a reaction to that vocal superminority. Also, there's the hypocrisy (which I can't abide, but I understand).

Replace white with black and you refer to a hell of a lot more experiences. Historically, "cancel black people" is a thing that happens, "cancel white people" isn't. When people say "kill blacks/Muslims/Jews/untermenschen" (it's such a long list) they do that enough of the time that you gotta take it seriously. "Kill/cancel white people" is just flipping a script in a way that never happens in real life so it's not taken seriously. Was anybody scared of this reporter stoking anti-white violence? In the same way that when somebody tweets "cancel black people," black people (and people racists think are black) can rightfully be scared for themselves and of this person?

Anyways, Mike Cernovich (the guy who "outs" these tweets from years ago) is just a dude who's pissed that he can't use the N word. That's like his whole thing.

Women are raped and sexually assaulted at rates many times greater than men, therefore rape and assault against men is fine because it almost never happens.

That's great. Excellent argument, slick.

I think you misconstrue me as saying discrimination against white people (can't call it racism cause of the power difference) is ok. Obviously as a white person I want to be treated the same as other people, I'm not self-hating like conservatives think most white libs are. I just expect that people can tell the difference between racial inspired attacks on minorities versus majorities, worldwide and in our country. The numbers are such that it's simply not a fear that majority populations should have. If you're white and scared of the Black Panthers, you should stay inside to be safe from falling space debris. It's out there. If you're scared of Sarah Jeong's tweets, you are somebody Mike Cernovich made up.

That said, thanks for bringing up domestic violence. It does go both ways, and I'm happy to see you taking it seriously. If your partner is acting abusively, don't trust that they'll get better. Get help. Call the police. It will help both of you in the long run.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

(can't call it racism cause of the power difference) is ok

What a dumb argument and probably the worst things that's come from academia. If you believe such crap, then you are self-hating despite what you say.

If i were to go to China and start making fun of the lil' Chinese fellows with their funny eyes, or something to that effect, you would undoubtedly say it's racist. But i have no power in China, absolutely none.

Maybe you can see how that argument breaks down now as the excuse of the sneaky, "nice" racists, or people who don't think they're racists but really are. Now if you want to say that institutional racism (as in, enforced or condoned by the government against a minority) against whites isn't a concern, your argument would have merit. Except in South Africa. But it would be sound.

By definition, racism is the belief that any race is superior to another. Power has nothing to do with it, and attempts to say minorities "can't be racist" because they lack the political clout is an attempt by actual, true blue racists to undermine credibility of their perceived enemy.

The black kids that beat the tar out of the disabled white kid a year or two ago are racists, for example, even though they may be the national minority (but local majority...who has the power now?), tout court.

[thegreekdog]

boomer cohort you identify with

Gross... I'm Gen X dude.

So tell me greek, does Twitter wokeness bother you? Why are white people so worried about being canceled?

I mean, all the wokeness just means Trump wins the presidency again. That's what bothers me. And the alternative (Bernie or Debbie or Elizabeth) is not much better. Give me a moderate Republican or Democrat and I'm good to go.

Jeong is your typical woke Twitter personality and I am definitely of the mind that social media activism is not real activism. I'm not really defending that her dumb Twitter jokes are accomplishing anything. Just that they're dumb Twitter jokes and that's ok.

Jeong is also now on the editorial board of the (perhaps) most distinguished newspaper in the United States.

#cancel@thegreekdog

Speaking of the New York Times...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/styl ... ilege.html

[karel]

all the left is.....they are a bunch of racist bigots and the truth hurts,how does that make you left scum bags feel,bunch of losers

[Symmetry]

All the left is.....they are a bunch of racist bigots and the truth hurts, how does that make you left scum bags feel, bunch of losers.

Is it bad that I feel sorry for you? I fixed some of the problems in your post. No need to thank me.

[Neoteny]

First, I'm going to mark statements as either boomer (b) or genx (x).

boomer cohort you identify with

Gross... I'm Gen X dude. X

I mean, all the wokeness just means Trump wins the presidency again. B
That's what bothers me. B
And the alternative (Bernie or Debbie or Elizabeth) is not much better. X

Give me a moderate Republican or Democrat and I'm good to go. X

Jeong is also now on the editorial board of the (perhaps) most distinguished newspaper in the United States. BBBBBBB

You are a boomer dude. I just did science on you. The evidence is incontrovertible.

It's particularly interesting that you choose to blame the Democratic base, which woke Twitter pretty much embodies (they're still yelling about Bernie bros costing them the election) for the Trump presidency, as opposed to, say, Trump voters for voting for him, the Trump campaign for winning the election, or the Hillary campaign for losing it. I labeled that sentiment as boomer but it's becoming pretty clear that its cross-generational to blame the base for the faults of the candidate. It's not really the wine moms' fault Hillary didn't campaign in Michigan (though it is their fault for defending that decision). You could maybe blame them for electing the party apparatus that has now become self-preserving and out of touch with their base, but that might better be blamed on the people who created that party as it is today. You know, boomers and Gen Xers.

Boomer or not, this is an example of why "THE DISCOURSE" is such a waste of time. People who didn't vote in the election didn't stay home because millenials need safe spaces or whatever. They stayed home because neither Hillary nor Trump represented them, and it's easy to see why. This is a two way street, because the NYT types whining about Trump disrespecting "THE NORMS" or "THE SANCTITY OF THE OFFICE" or whatever isn't going to prevent people from voting for Trump again (assuming he runs again, I actually believe he hates the job and won't want to do it again; the only reason he persists is his ego) or to vote for whatever limp-dicked Democrat the party trots out. Trump won because he paid lip service to normal people, and because the Clintons have such a damaged political image. And maybe don't fully understand how the electoral college works? It was a bad campaign.

And Greek, I know it's precious to you, but I have to pull a patches and note that, in a generation, nobody is going to care about the New York Times editorial board. They're going to keep printing Ross Douthat's dumb shit until people all blow their damn brains out.

[warmonger1981]

is it OK for a person who appears to be white but associate themselves as black make black jokes. Such as Rachel Dolezal.? Or is it racist for a person who has white parents and was born white call themselves black? And who gets to decide what jokes are appropriate? What constitutes a joke?

[thegreekdog]

First, I'm going to mark statements as either boomer (b) or genx (x).

boomer cohort you identify with

Gross... I'm Gen X dude. X

I mean, all the wokeness just means Trump wins the presidency again. B
That's what bothers me. B
And the alternative (Bernie or Debbie or Elizabeth) is not much better. X

Give me a moderate Republican or Democrat and I'm good to go. X

Jeong is also now on the editorial board of the (perhaps) most distinguished newspaper in the United States. BBBBBBB

You are a boomer dude. I just did science on you. The evidence is incontrovertible.

It's particularly interesting that you choose to blame the Democratic base, which woke Twitter pretty much embodies (they're still yelling about Bernie bros costing them the election) for the Trump presidency, as opposed to, say, Trump voters for voting for him, the Trump campaign for winning the election, or the Hillary campaign for losing it. I labeled that sentiment as boomer but it's becoming pretty clear that its cross-generational to blame the base for the faults of the candidate. It's not really the wine moms' fault Hillary didn't campaign in Michigan (though it is their fault for defending that decision). You could maybe blame them for electing the party apparatus that has now become self-preserving and out of touch with their base, but that might better be blamed on the people who created that party as it is today. You know, boomers and Gen Xers.

Boomer or not, this is an example of why "THE DISCOURSE" is such a waste of time. People who didn't vote in the election didn't stay home because millenials need safe spaces or whatever. They stayed home because neither Hillary nor Trump represented them, and it's easy to see why. This is a two way street, because the NYT types whining about Trump disrespecting "THE NORMS" or "THE SANCTITY OF THE OFFICE" or whatever isn't going to prevent people from voting for Trump again (assuming he runs again, I actually believe he hates the job and won't want to do it again; the only reason he persists is his ego) or to vote for whatever limp-dicked Democrat the party trots out. Trump won because he paid lip service to normal people, and because the Clintons have such a damaged political image. And maybe don't fully understand how the electoral college works? It was a bad campaign.

And Greek, I know it's precious to you, but I have to pull a patches and note that, in a generation, nobody is going to care about the New York Times editorial board. They're going to keep printing Ross Douthat's dumb shit until people all blow their damn brains out.

I can't possibly be a boomer as I was born towards the end of Gen X. By some accounts, I could be a millenial. Further, I self-identify as Gen X and isn't that the most important thing - how I self identify? I'm reliably informed that's most important.

As to why Trump won (or HIllary lost), there are probably many different factors one of which is certainly the "normal people" concept. The voter turnout numbers are also fairly instructive (voters as a percentage of eligible voters):

- 1996 - 49% (the last year I couldn't vote)
- 2000 - 50.3% (I voted for Bush)
- 2004 - 55.7% (Didn't vote)
- 2008 - 58.2% (I voted for Bob Barr (libertarian))
- 2012 - 54.9% (I voted for Romney)
- 2016 - 55.5% (I voted for Gary Johnson (libertarian))

Given that 2016 seems to be fairly average over the past 6 elections and just above the mean, I'd say people stayed home because people stay home, not for any reason like what you've posited. In other words, seems like a fairly normal presidential election, statistically. I've never found voting to be particularly time-consuming or troublesome and there are candidates for everyone's tastes. So this idea that "Clinton and Trump didn't represent me so I'm not voting" is a particularly weird thought (unless we think that's what happens every four years).

For what it's worth, I don't think Trump will win (putting aside whether he actually stays in office until he's up for reelection and assuming Republicans don't try to run against him in a serious way (I have a theory on this that once the Republicans get what they want out of Trump (another Supreme Court justice), they'll start turning on him more)). Again, my concern here is that the alternative from a policy perspective could be much worse because, whatever you say about the blue base, they are getting a lot more crazy. The trend is not for the Dems to nominate Hillary 2.0; the trend is for the Dems to find either their version of Trump or someone as radicalized as possible. Look at who the Dem candidate frontrunners are and what they are saying. They're all moving further to the left than anyone did previously (with the exception of Sanders). You know how a lot of the blue team yearns for the days of Romney and McCain? I think we're going to get to the point where the red team starts yearning for the days of Obama. I honestly hope I'm wrong and the parties nominate presidential candidates that are moderate, but I don't see it going that way.