On blaming religion for Trump

[Fiveholm]

Well yeah we are here. Luckily enough I am not an American, so that leaves one person who is presumably being impacted directly through this conversation. Let's assume a handful more people read it in its entirety. You really think that this is enough to force an religious people to support Trump? No. That's ludicrous.

Where is your evidence to suggest that, aside from your own opinions? What data do you have to suggest Christian's feel forced to vote for Trump because of this nebulous left wing attack they are supposedly under online? Where's the beef?

Because, if we cut to the chase, the reality is that Christians vote for Trump for a myriad of reasons, some which may be his policies. That is fair enough, but it also makes them abject hypocrites who value ends over means.

But I'm not talking about one discussion on one website. I'm talking about all forms of online media. You guys can scream ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE !!! at me all you want. I don't care. I said I'm not gonna go through the trouble of drudging up examples because I feel like no amount of evidence would be sufficient.

I mean, why is MY OWN decision not an example of what I'm talking about? One of the reasons I'm voting Trump is because I feel like the other side hates me. You believe I'm the only one or something?

opinions =/= facts.

[Salus Maior]

Because, if we cut to the chase, the reality is that Christians vote for Trump for a myriad of reasons, some which may be his policies. That is fair enough, but it also makes them abject hypocrites who value ends over means.

Who are they supposed to vote for then? We're in America, we only get two people to elect for President in the end.

[Jedi Council]

Well yeah we are here. Luckily enough I am not an American, so that leaves one person who is presumably being impacted directly through this conversation. Let's assume a handful more people read it in its entirety. You really think that this is enough to force an religious people to support Trump? No. That's ludicrous.

Where is your evidence to suggest that, aside from your own opinions? What data do you have to suggest Christian's feel forced to vote for Trump because of this nebulous left wing attack they are supposedly under online? Where's the beef?

Because, if we cut to the chase, the reality is that Christians vote for Trump for a myriad of reasons, some which may be his policies. That is fair enough, but it also makes them abject hypocrites who value ends over means.

But I'm not talking about one discussion on one website. I'm talking about all forms of online media. You guys can scream ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE !!! at me all you want. I don't care. I said I'm not gonna go through the trouble of drudging up examples because I feel like no amount of evidence would be sufficient.

I mean, why is MY OWN decision not an example of what I'm talking about? One of the reasons I'm voting Trump is because I feel like the other side hates me. You believe I'm the only one or something?

It is an example. An anecdotal example by your own admission.

Anecdotal evidence is a terrible way of making decisions or basing an argument.

I know a christian who hates Trump because he is so sinful. I could sit here saying that this means all Christians must hate Trump for the same reason, but I would be sitting in the exact same position as you are finding yourself it now, which is making a baseless claim on bad evidence.

So sorry, the fact you dont want to find the evidence does not excuse you from needing it to prove your point. And until you do, I think you'll have a hard time with anyone on this site engaging with you in a serious manner.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

Well yeah we are here. Luckily enough I am not an American, so that leaves one person who is presumably being impacted directly through this conversation. Let's assume a handful more people read it in its entirety. You really think that this is enough to force an religious people to support Trump? No. That's ludicrous.

Where is your evidence to suggest that, aside from your own opinions? What data do you have to suggest Christian's feel forced to vote for Trump because of this nebulous left wing attack they are supposedly under online? Where's the beef?

Because, if we cut to the chase, the reality is that Christians vote for Trump for a myriad of reasons, some which may be his policies. That is fair enough, but it also makes them abject hypocrites who value ends over means.

But I'm not talking about one discussion on one website. I'm talking about all forms of online media. You guys can scream ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE !!! at me all you want. I don't care. I said I'm not gonna go through the trouble of drudging up examples because I feel like no amount of evidence would be sufficient.

I mean, why is MY OWN decision not an example of what I'm talking about? One of the reasons I'm voting Trump is because I feel like the other side hates me. You believe I'm the only one or something?

Your original claim was that Democrats hate Christians. Ok, but the evidence is on social media, which is naturally going to display the most extreme opinions.

That is why your evidence is insufficient, because it's a bad attempt to represent an entire group by using the extremes that are heard screaming on social media compared to the silent majority that doesn't.

[Necroghastia]

Well yeah we are here. Luckily enough I am not an American, so that leaves one person who is presumably being impacted directly through this conversation. Let's assume a handful more people read it in its entirety. You really think that this is enough to force an religious people to support Trump? No. That's ludicrous.

Where is your evidence to suggest that, aside from your own opinions? What data do you have to suggest Christian's feel forced to vote for Trump because of this nebulous left wing attack they are supposedly under online? Where's the beef?

Because, if we cut to the chase, the reality is that Christians vote for Trump for a myriad of reasons, some which may be his policies. That is fair enough, but it also makes them abject hypocrites who value ends over means.

But I'm not talking about one discussion on one website. I'm talking about all forms of online media. You guys can scream ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE !!! at me all you want. I don't care. I said I'm not gonna go through the trouble of drudging up examples because I feel like no amount of evidence would be sufficient.

I mean, why is MY OWN decision not an example of what I'm talking about? One of the reasons I'm voting Trump is because I feel like the other side hates me. You believe I'm the only one or something?

So you're complaining about the left labeling christians as "evil dumb dumbs," and to retaliate against that, you're voting for the guy who epitomizes that very stereotype. That toooootally makes sense.

[Jedi Council]

Because, if we cut to the chase, the reality is that Christians vote for Trump for a myriad of reasons, some which may be his policies. That is fair enough, but it also makes them abject hypocrites who value ends over means.

Who are they supposed to vote for then? We're in America, we only get two people to elect for President in the end.

Rather than be a hypocrite, the morally correct thing to do would be to try and change the system, or organize support for someone who actually embodies your values.

The idea that you are being forced into this choice is false, America is a Democracy, you could write in Jesus fucking Christ if you really wanted to.

Instead, plenty of religious people seem fine with supporting a man who is sin made flesh, just because he might, emphasis on might, support some religious policies just for the votes.

If this is really religions only recourse, it is far more morally bankrupt than I thought.

[Ammostan]

But the extremes are the ones that get heard. If you speak softly you get drowned out.

I know a christian who hates Trump because he is so sinful.

If you're a Christian you shouldn't be hating anybody, especially not because of their sins.

[Outer Acharet]

But I'm not talking about one discussion on one website. I'm talking about all forms of online media. You guys can scream ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE !!! at me all you want. I don't care. I said I'm not gonna go through the trouble of drudging up examples because I feel like no amount of evidence would be sufficient.

I mean, why is MY OWN decision not an example of what I'm talking about? One of the reasons I'm voting Trump is because I feel like the other side hates me. You believe I'm the only one or something?

Okay, as much as I hate to get into this...

A breakdown:
Twitter promotes soundbyte-style short hot takes that are naturally extreme.
Facebook promotes massive echo-chambers on all sides of the spectrum.
So do Reddit and Tumblr for that matter. Each of them reward the posts that the "hive mind" agrees with and promotes a sense of false solidarity within groups. Reddit allowed for those groups to isolate on their own subreddits, while Tumblr let users create and congregate by sorting posts by tags. That's part of the reason it, and Twitter now, are largely regarded as shit for looking at people's views.
4chan and the rest of the -chan imageboards, if I even have to mention them, created a space where you could say whatever the hell you wanted without a name attached to your post. It then concentrated its most unsavory views even further under certain boards like /pol/, which were then further concentrated due to the exodus of right-wing users from Reddit after that site's perception in the public eye shifted left.

So, in conclusion, the largest social media sites, and much of the smaller ones too, are geared towards promoting controversy to generate revenue, as that controversy drives traffic. They also create echo chambers of certain viewpoints that self-promote endlessly in what amounts to a virtual session of patting each other on the back over and over for having such intelligent views. DO NOT take anything on social media as a representative of the larger political stance of the nation. The "dinosaur" news, more particularly local news for various regions, is a better representative of that, if you need one.

EDIT:

Because, if we cut to the chase, the reality is that Christians vote for Trump for a myriad of reasons, some which may be his policies. That is fair enough, but it also makes them abject hypocrites who value ends over means.

Who are they supposed to vote for then? We're in America, we only get two people to elect for President in the end.

You can vote for a third party, independent, or write-in candidate. It's just the system doesn't do anything to prevent the rise of two massive parties that dominate the political stage.

[Salus Maior]

Rather than be a hypocrite, the morally correct thing to do would be to try and change the system, or organize support for someone who actually embodies your values.

The idea that you are being forced into this choice is false, America is a Democracy, you could write in Jesus fucking Christ if you really wanted to.

Oh yes, changing an entire government system can happen just like that, can it? Such an ignorant answer.

The truth is, third parties don't get elected, even if theoretically they can. Because the two parties hold the media and have the connections and means to get people into office that others don't. And you can do a write in, but that's pretty much the same deal.

[Ammostan]

But I'm not talking about one discussion on one website. I'm talking about all forms of online media. You guys can scream ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE !!! at me all you want. I don't care. I said I'm not gonna go through the trouble of drudging up examples because I feel like no amount of evidence would be sufficient.

I mean, why is MY OWN decision not an example of what I'm talking about? One of the reasons I'm voting Trump is because I feel like the other side hates me. You believe I'm the only one or something?

Okay, as much as I hate to get into this...

A breakdown:
Twitter promotes soundbyte-style short hot takes that are naturally extreme.
Facebook promotes massive echo-chambers on all sides of the spectrum.
So do Reddit and Tumblr for that matter. Each of them reward the posts that the "hive mind" agrees with and promotes a sense of false solidarity within groups. Reddit allowed for those groups to isolate on their own subreddits, while Tumblr let users create and congregate by sorting posts by tags. That's part of the reason it, and Twitter now, are largely regarded as shit for looking at people's views.
4chan and the rest of the -chan imageboards, if I even have to mention them, created a space where you could say whatever the hell you wanted without a name attached to your post. It then concentrated its most unsavory views even further under certain boards like /pol/, which were then further concentrated due to the exodus of right-wing users from Reddit after that site's perception in the public eye shifted left.

So, in conclusion, the largest social media sites, and much of the smaller ones too, are geared towards promoting controversy to generate revenue, as that controversy drives traffic. They also create echo chambers of certain viewpoints that self-promote endlessly in what amounts to a virtual session of patting each other on the back over and over for having such intelligent views. DO NOT take anything on social media as a representative of the larger political stance of the nation. The "dinosaur" news, more particularly local news for various regions, is a better representative of that, if you need one.

EDIT:

Who are they supposed to vote for then? We're in America, we only get two people to elect for President in the end.

You can vote for a third party, independent, or write-in candidate. It's just the system doesn't do anything to prevent the rise of two massive parties that dominate the political stage.

I'm aware of these things, my point is more about the AMOUNT of vitriol from the AMOUNT of users indicates that there is a LARGE section of the populous that believes these things.


Yup. Duverger's law holds that plurality-rule elections structured within single-member districts tend to favor a two-party system

[Mount Aris]

Because Trump is the second coming of Hitler, obviously. Never mind we said the same thing about Bush and it didn't come true.

Bush was pretty bad. We seem to be forgetting that now that there is a different bad Republican in office.

Bill Clinton had sex with Monica Lewinsky and that scandal made every headline

[Outer Acharet]

Rather than be a hypocrite, the morally correct thing to do would be to try and change the system, or organize support for someone who actually embodies your values.

The idea that you are being forced into this choice is false, America is a Democracy, you could write in Jesus fucking Christ if you really wanted to.

Oh yes, changing an entire government system can happen just like that, can it? Such an ignorant answer.

The truth is, third parties don't get elected, even if theoretically they can. Because the two parties hold the media and have the connections and means to get people into office that others don't. And you can do a write in, but that's pretty much the same deal.

Not entirely true, third parties do occasionally succeed in America. Example: the Populist party in the 1890s, which represented farmers and called for reform in the face of massive undercutting by the more urban populations. (This can be looked at as partially representative of what happened with the election in 2016, too, to keep this on topic.) However, to quote Richard Hofstadter, "Third parties are like bees; whenever they have stung, they die". A third party under the American system emerges to target a specific issue the big two haven't looked to cover yet. Whenever the larger parties notice and take up the third party's platform, its issue- its impetus for life- is removed, and it collapses.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

I'm aware of these things, my point is more about the AMOUNT of vitriol from the AMOUNT of users indicates that there is a LARGE section of the populous that believes these things.

The evidence is on social media, which is naturally going to display the most extreme opinions.

That is why your evidence is insufficient, because it's a bad attempt to represent an entire group by using the extremes that are heard screaming on social media compared to the silent majority that doesn't.

Also can't forget that social media often wants to pump up their numbers to make themselves seem larger than they really are.

And also bots make any attempt to catalogue a definitive number of people laughably impossible.

[Jedi Council]

Rather than be a hypocrite, the morally correct thing to do would be to try and change the system, or organize support for someone who actually embodies your values.

The idea that you are being forced into this choice is false, America is a Democracy, you could write in Jesus fucking Christ if you really wanted to.

Oh yes, changing an entire government system can happen just like that, can it? Such an ignorant answer.

The truth is, third parties don't get elected, even if theoretically they can. Because the two parties hold the media and have the connections and means to get people into office that others don't. And you can do a write in, but that's pretty much the same deal.

Did I say it was easy? Did I say it would happen overnight? No.

But if ones religion is too morally bankrupt, too cowardly, or too lazy to put in the work to actually live by its principles then it is a pretty shit religion in the first place.

Assuming the Christian God is real, you think the "but it's too hard" argument is going to fly once you get up to the pearly gates? When you're asked "Why did you vote for the antithesis of our values to be your President," do you really think "Well what, you want us to actually put in the effort to change the system!?!" Is going to get you in?

[Jedi Council]

But the extremes are the ones that get heard. If you speak softly you get drowned out.

I know a christian who hates Trump because he is so sinful.

If you're a Christian you shouldn't be hating anybody, especially not because of their sins.

Good attempt to dodge the fact you have Zero evidence for your argument.

[Ammostan]

Oh yes, changing an entire government system can happen just like that, can it? Such an ignorant answer.

The truth is, third parties don't get elected, even if theoretically they can. Because the two parties hold the media and have the connections and means to get people into office that others don't. And you can do a write in, but that's pretty much the same deal.

Did I say it was easy? Did I say it would happen overnight? No.

But if ones religion is too morally bankrupt, too cowardly, or too lazy to put in the work to actually live by its principles then it is a pretty shit religion in the first place.

Assuming the Christian God is real, you think the "but it's too hard" argument is going to fly once you get up to the pearly gates? When you're asked "Why did you vote for the antithesis of our values to be your President," do you really think "Well what, you want us to actually put in the effort to change the system!?!" Is going to get you in?

Saved by grace, through faith, not by works.

[Jedi Council]

Did I say it was easy? Did I say it would happen overnight? No.

But if ones religion is too morally bankrupt, too cowardly, or too lazy to put in the work to actually live by its principles then it is a pretty shit religion in the first place.

Assuming the Christian God is real, you think the "but it's too hard" argument is going to fly once you get up to the pearly gates? When you're asked "Why did you vote for the antithesis of our values to be your President," do you really think "Well what, you want us to actually put in the effort to change the system!?!" Is going to get you in?

Saved by grace, through faith, not by works.

What an excellent justification for utter hypocrisy

[The Black Forrest]

Well yeah we are here. Luckily enough I am not an American, so that leaves one person who is presumably being impacted directly through this conversation. Let's assume a handful more people read it in its entirety. You really think that this is enough to force an religious people to support Trump? No. That's ludicrous.

Where is your evidence to suggest that, aside from your own opinions? What data do you have to suggest Christian's feel forced to vote for Trump because of this nebulous left wing attack they are supposedly under online? Where's the beef?

Because, if we cut to the chase, the reality is that Christians vote for Trump for a myriad of reasons, some which may be his policies. That is fair enough, but it also makes them abject hypocrites who value ends over means.

But I'm not talking about one discussion on one website. I'm talking about all forms of online media. You guys can scream ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE !!! at me all you want. I don't care. I said I'm not gonna go through the trouble of drudging up examples because I feel like no amount of evidence would be sufficient.

I mean, why is MY OWN decision not an example of what I'm talking about? One of the reasons I'm voting Trump is because I feel like the other side hates me. You believe I'm the only one or something?

Wow. I am watching CNN and I haven't heard a Christians suck story yet.

At least own it. You vote from Trump because you like him. We didn't force you to vote for him.

[Salus Maior]

But if ones religion is too morally bankrupt, too cowardly, or too lazy to put in the work to actually live by its principles then it is a pretty shit religion in the first place.

Look, man, people who are religious really aren't any different from anyone else. They have their own responsibilities and obligations and like most people aren't able to undergo huge political campaigns and essentially mobilize for massive change. It's not a mark of moral bankruptcy that any one person isn't marching on Washington as we speak.

[Outer Acharet]

Assuming the Christian God is real, you think the "but it's too hard" argument is going to fly once you get up to the pearly gates? When you're asked "Why did you vote for the antithesis of our values to be your President," do you really think "Well what, you want us to actually put in the effort to change the system!?!" Is going to get you in?

To add to this, there's also a sort of hypocrisy I've noticed where people will criticize religious folks- especially Christians- for proselytizing and forcing their beliefs on others. If, say, I believed that the Holy Potato will crush all unbelievers beneath its mighty girth, then I would as a lover of people want to make everyone into believers to save them from this grisly fate. The same attitudes apply to a lot of the really evangelical folks who want to save your soul. I think they're going at it wrong, and the best way for a religion to win converts is to follow its principles and show that they are in the right, but it can't be ignored the proselytizers 50% of the time have a good goal.

[The Black Forrest]

But the extremes are the ones that get heard. If you speak softly you get drowned out.

I know a christian who hates Trump because he is so sinful.

If you're a Christian you shouldn't be hating anybody, especially not because of their sins.

And yet discrimination is ok.

[Ammostan]

Saved by grace, through faith, not by works.

What an excellent justification for utter hypocrisy

You seem to think that Christians have to somehow earn their salvation. This is wrong. If we could get saved by works, how MUCH work would be necessary? If we could be saved by works, then Christ's blood was meaningless.

[Jedi Council]

But if ones religion is too morally bankrupt, too cowardly, or too lazy to put in the work to actually live by its principles then it is a pretty shit religion in the first place.

Look, man, people who are religious really aren't any different from anyone else. They have their own responsibilities and obligations and like most people aren't able to undergo huge political campaigns. It's not a mark of moral bankruptcy that any one person isn't marching on Washington as we speak.

Again, that's not a justification.

"Oh I'm just too damn busy to not be hypocritical today, let's vote for the guy who is entirely contrary to my beliefs."

That is not an excuse. I am a busy person too, but I am not going to support someone antithetical to my values because of it, even on the off chance they might do something I like.

What an excellent justification for utter hypocrisy

You seem to think that Christians have to somehow earn their salvation. This is wrong. If we could get saved by works, how MUCH work would be necessary? If we could be saved by works, then Christ's blood was meaningless.

If faith alone is enough, then there are some seriously dubious people who get in.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

Look, man, people who are religious really aren't any different from anyone else. They have their own responsibilities and obligations and like most people aren't able to undergo huge political campaigns. It's not a mark of moral bankruptcy that any one person isn't marching on Washington as we speak.

Again, that's not a justification.

"Oh I'm just too damn busy to not be hypocritical today, let's vote for the guy who is entirely contrary to my beliefs."

That is not an excuse. I am a busy person too, but I am not going to support someone antithetical to my values because of it, even on the off chance they might do something I like.

You seem to think that Christians have to somehow earn their salvation. This is wrong. If we could get saved by works, how MUCH work would be necessary? If we could be saved by works, then Christ's blood was meaningless.

If faith alone is enough, then there are some seriously dubious people who get in.

If faith alone is enough, then Hitler slipped through the pearly gates of heaven, considering he was a protestant.

[Salus Maior]

Again, that's not a justification.

"Oh I'm just too damn busy to not be hypocritical today, let's vote for the guy who is entirely contrary to my beliefs."

That is not an excuse. I am a busy person too, but I am not going to support someone antithetical to my values because of it, even on the off chance they might do something I like.

Alright, so who would you choose if there were only two candidates and both were shit (which is typical imo), but one of them alludes to wanting to do something for policies you care about.