$30.00
Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 Hide
62 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: the feedback loop of the abuser (re: Trump & the RSP trolls) rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: EC [+] [View All]
fightcitymayor
United States
Mc Donald
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Proprietor and Chairman Emeritus of The Naughty Palace
mb
As I perused my typical libertarian reading for the day (obviously wearing my top-hat & monocle & lighting expensive cigars with $100 bills) I came across this nice little article relating how the "You're making me do it!" excuse is the trick of abusers everywhere:

Quote:
One of the most common characteristics of abusers that I noticed when I worked with people with disabilities was the attitude that the client's resistance to the abuse was itself thought of as justification for the abuse. Once that feedback loop is established, control is justified through both acquiescence and resistance, and there's nothing the client can do (behavior wise) to escape. The same holds true for abusive relationships, prisons, police, or any other kind of authoritarian regime. The broader message is "Your resistance to my behavior is the reason I behave this way in the first place."

Remember this over the next four years when you hear the trope "See this is why Trump won."
If you call his appointees racist, that's why Trump won.
If you boo Mike Pence, that's why Trump won.
If you protest in the streets, that's why Trump won.
If you insult him or his supporters, that's why Trump won.
It's a rhetorical tool for neutering resistance. Always ask what function it serves.
29 
 Thumb up
2.11
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Stone
United States
Texarkana
Texas
flag msg tools
May the bikini be with you!
badge
I destroy SJWs!
mbmbmbmbmb
Lesson, "Stop being an asshole to people who disagree with you. Every time you do, give a fucks die by the bushel."
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
bjlillo wrote:
You're victim blaming.


Haha, Juanita thumbed that. Do you feel dirty?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Stone
United States
Texarkana
Texas
flag msg tools
May the bikini be with you!
badge
I destroy SJWs!
mbmbmbmbmb
galad2003 wrote:
I like how the side that planted protesters at Trump rallies, hires professional protesters and is staging violent riots is accusing the other side of being abusive. Then says this: "Your resistance to my behavior is the reason I behave this way in the first place."

Oh the irony.


"STOP MAKING ME HIT YOU AND BREAK YOUR STUFF!!!"
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Mc Donald
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Proprietor and Chairman Emeritus of The Naughty Palace
mb
And right on cue, the first 4 responses are all from RSP rightwingers with whom the article has struck a very definite nerve.
I believe my work here is done for the day, so I will go back to my readings.

17 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
casey r lowe
United States
butte
Montana
flag msg tools
mb
tstone wrote:
Lesson, "Stop being an asshole to people who disagree with you. Every time you do, give a fucks die by the bushel."

that means you have committed give a fucks genocide
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
galad2003 wrote:
I like how the side that planted protesters at Trump rallies, hires professional protesters and is staging violent riots is accusing the other side of being abusive. Then says this: "Your resistance to my behavior is the reason I behave this way in the first place."

Oh the irony.


Let's see your side has the candidate who regularly lied about Muslims in order to whip up religious hatred against a religious minority. But yet you are the victim? Sorry, not our irony as much as your bigoted idiocy at work here
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
utoption2 wrote:
The liberals would be much better served if they attempted to figure out why their Queen got hammered in the Electorial College count instead of bitching about conservatives.


because the American electoral system is an anti-democratic institution that was designed to serve the needs of thirteen independent demi-nation-states that distrusted the ability of the general public to self-govern and believed they needed overwatch by elites, and as a result of institutional inertia has not changed from that

that was pretty easy, how about next we attempt to figure out why people like Coldplay
19 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
bjlillo wrote:
she2 wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
You're victim blaming.


Haha, Juanita thumbed that. Do you feel dirty?


I don't know who Juanita is, so I guess not.


Juanita is Junius. Dan committed a typo recently while typing on his phone so I have adopted it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
bjlillo wrote:
she2 wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
she2 wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
You're victim blaming.


Haha, Juanita thumbed that. Do you feel dirty?


I don't know who Juanita is, so I guess not.


Juanita is Junius. Dan committed a typo recently while typing on his phone so I have adopted it.


Ahh. The only Juanita I know is the pseudonym my dad gives to pollsters who call him. She's a transvestite, Mexican, Jill Stein voter.


Sounds like Junius.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jasper
Netherlands
Leiden
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:
that was pretty easy, how about next we attempt to figure out why people like Coldplay
Easy, they make middle of the road lowest common denominator shitty popsongs. People like that.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Fisher
United States
Downingtown
PA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Venga2 wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
that was pretty easy, how about next we attempt to figure out why people like Coldplay
Easy, they make middle of the road lowest common denominator shitty popsongs. People like that.


I thought that was Nickelback.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jasper
Netherlands
Leiden
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
lfisher wrote:
Venga2 wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
that was pretty easy, how about next we attempt to figure out why people like Coldplay
Easy, they make middle of the road lowest common denominator shitty popsongs. People like that.


I thought that was Nickelback.
They're thick as flies on shite.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Sorry if I spoke and quoted truth harshly here.

But if you ignore it, you'll wish for these days again once you see what comes after:

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God." Hebrews 10
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
utoption2 wrote:
Let's simplify it, Christopher, since you missed the main point. Hillary and company (i.e. the Liberals and Hillary supporters) need to get off their high horses and quit bitching and figure out what factors led to losing the election according to the rules that everybody agreed to play by.


First off, "everybody agreed" is kind of a stretch because the nature of institutional inertia is not so much "everybody agrees to do this" but rather "so long as a small minority of people refuse to change then people are stuck with it" - I mean, if you wanted to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College tomorrow, it could be blocked by the legislatures of the smallest thirteen states, which represent just under four and a half percent of the US population (and it likely would since the EC gives those states more power than they otherwise would have). If you want to instead suggest that it would instead be blocked by the thirteen smallest strongly-Republican states - since the current system strongly favours the GOP - then it's about six and a half percent instead. This is why RSP and pretty much every other political discussion group under the sun regularly acknowledges that the EC is stupid and antidemocratic but also that it's never going to change.

Second, I don't see that it's a matter of "high horses" to say that the current electoral system favours conservatives, because it does; the current liberal/conservative divide is also almost entirely an urban/rural divide, and the American electoral system favours rural voters, always has. Liberals prefer to live in cities and conservatives prefer to live in more rural areas, and that's fine, except for two basic facts: 1.) there are actually more liberals than conservatives and 2.) the American electoral system is designed to give rural voters more power (by virtue of the Electoral College and the Senate).

And third, this is the core problem with your premise: you're starting from the position that the game is rigged in favour of conservatives and liberals just have to deal with it and that's okay. You want to have a conversation about the Clinton campaign's failures, but the Clinton campaign's chief failure was "not getting an unprecedented amount of votes like Barack Obama did" because Hillary Clinton is currently leading in the popular vote count by approximately two million votes and will end up with a lead of in between two point five and three million votes. She will literally have gotten more votes for President than every white male Presidential candidate in history, but because she lost by about a combined 100,000 votes in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania - IE, .0003% of the population.

As a result of this loss, which happens only because of rules that the right will generally admit are anti-democratic, the right is now saying "welp, tough, the game favours our positions, so now you libs gotta come to our side and give our positions that you disagree with support, even though there's, you know, less of us than you." These are, ironically, generally the same sort of people who disdain the concept of "privilege."

The right answer is for the left to say "no, fuck you."

(Incidentally, this should serve to remind us that Barack Obama was an insanely talented, once-in-a-generation politician. He didn't have to just win, he had to win by huge margins.)
22 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
Cleveland Heights
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:
First off, "everybody agreed" is kind of a stretch because the nature of institutional inertia is not so much "everybody agrees to do this" but rather "so long as a small minority of people refuse to change then people are stuck with it" - I mean, if you wanted to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College tomorrow, it could be blocked by the legislatures of the smallest thirteen states, which represent just under four and a half percent of the US population (and it likely would since the EC gives those states more power than they otherwise would have). If you want to instead suggest that it would instead be blocked by the thirteen smallest strongly-Republican states - since the current system strongly favours the GOP - then it's about six and a half percent instead. This is why RSP and pretty much every other political discussion group under the sun regularly acknowledges that the EC is stupid and antidemocratic but also that it's never going to change.
I agree with your post, it is well written, but think you are a bit hard on the EC in this first part. In a Union of sovereign states, the EC is a compromise to keep big states from leading small states around by the nose. Why would small, lower populated states even want to be part of the Union if they had no control of their destiny? Now, it isn't a perfect compromise, as we now are in the worst case scenario of tyranny of the minority instead of the majority, but that is a failure of politicians from both sides to frame issues to appeal to Americans instead of to their bases. I'm not sure stripping smaller states of their sovereignty to fix dumbass politicians is the answer.
4 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
I agree with your post, it is well written, but think you are a bit hard on the EC in this first part. In a Union of sovereign states, the EC is a compromise to keep big states from leading small states around by the nose. Why would small, lower populated states even want to be part of the Union if they had no control of their destiny?


My point is that stating that the interests of smaller, lower-population states in 1787 are not the same as the interests of smaller, lower-population states in 2016. The former were independent demi-nations which were largely fiscally independent of their larger brethren. The latter are essentially administrative divisions of a large, powerful federal state who rely on that federal state and the larger, richer states to pay for their budget shortfalls.

And I'm not suggesting that people who live in small low-population states shouldn't get the vote. I'm saying their vote should be equivalent in power to anybody living in a large state. Lots of other countries have relatively low-population rural states/provinces/areas and manage to consider their needs without giving them superfluous political power and imbalancing their political system as a result. America is not somehow unique in this regard, never mind how often it pretends it is.

Americans, regardless of ideology, have a tough time accepting the fact that their political system is really, really badly designed - and the bad design is understandable because it was designed by a bunch of rich landowners and slaveholders over two hundred years ago who never really anticipated what would happen if slavery became illegal, let alone massive population/wealth increases/imbalances, technological advances, etc. As a result there's been a lot of patchwork fixes and a series of attempts to work around lots of issues that have never been properly codified.
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Stuart
United States
Los Alamos
New Mexico
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
fightcitymayor wrote:
As I perused my typical libertarian reading for the day (obviously wearing my top-hat & monocle & lighting expensive cigars with $100 bills) I came across this nice little article relating how the "You're making me do it!" excuse is the trick of abusers everywhere:

Quote:
One of the most common characteristics of abusers that I noticed when I worked with people with disabilities was the attitude that the client's resistance to the abuse was itself thought of as justification for the abuse. Once that feedback loop is established, control is justified through both acquiescence and resistance, and there's nothing the client can do (behavior wise) to escape. The same holds true for abusive relationships, prisons, police, or any other kind of authoritarian regime. The broader message is "Your resistance to my behavior is the reason I behave this way in the first place."

This is how abuse works. It's worked for thousands of years. Finally, we're beginning to develop the psychological tools to fight this kind of violence which has been visited on society. And, what I find so promising, is that these tools given us through science -- the science of psychology -- are beginning to percolate into society in general.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
utoption2 wrote:
Chris, I don't really like all the Constitution, either. In fact, the 2000 election really pissed me off (and some the Senators that I spoke with, also). But, it kind of like playing any board game, such as Great Western Trail. The rules are a real pain in the ass. We learned the rules, some decided to play, I did not. I didn't like the rules, and I didn't like the flavor of the game. But those who stayed, they accepted the rules.

Now, whether or not the EC favors one side or the other, that requires more analysis. I *think*, but have not proven, that it is probably balanced over the course of history. Overall, though, I would prefer this system over the tyranny of 4 states governing the entire election.


A few points in response:

First, the "accept the rules" argument is crap because the overwhelming majority of people don't have a choice. The "if you don't like America, leave" argument has always been kind of fatuous and stupid, regardless of which side is making it (it's usually conservatives but occasionally you get a liberal doing it) because emigrating to most other countries is not easy - most countries only want either really rich people who will spend money, or skilled workers for whom they have a specific need. So let's not pretend that "accepting the rules" is some sort of open choice - like it's game night and we're grudgingly agreeing to play Electoral College instead of Terraforming Mars because Tommy really really wants to play Electoral College and we'd rather play Terraforming Mars but okay let's not disappoint Tommy - because it simply isn't.

Second, a historical analysis of the Electoral College shows that it is only "balanced" when parties are relatively non-ideological. America is fairly unique among modern nations because for most of its history, the parties were not ideologically opposed to one another, which is what happens in most countries most of the time: you have Party A which is moderately conservative, Party B which is moderately liberal, maybe Parties C and D which are more extreme versions of A and B, et cetera.

But in America, for a long time, there were liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, and accordingly the system sort of worked well enough. (Granted, when we say "worked well enough" we mean "for white people" because the reason parties were able to be ideologically diverse is that most of the ideologically diverse participants were able to agree on black people being either subhuman or inferior.)

The problem with this is that it only works well enough until literally anybody realizes that concentrating ideological beliefs in one party makes that party more cohesive and powerful. At that point the system is inexorably on the road to collapse, because people who oppose those ideological beliefs will congregate in the other major party (or splinter), and because the American system has no way of dealing with ideological gridlock. Indeed, ideological gridlock is basically baked into the core of the system. As a result, when you have ideological conflict, there's no way to resolve it. This is more or less what happened in 1860. And we all know what happened next.

Comparatively, first-past-the-post parliamentary systems have their problems (lord knows they do), but their strength from a political science standpoint is that the most popular party gets to govern, more or less, as they see fit. Accordingly, the will of the people is at least imperfectly met; each election serves as an actual referendum of the people, and while FP2P parliamentary systems do allow a party to govern while getting a minority of the popular vote, by their nature they also make sure that elections serve as curbs on overreach or corruption much better than presidential systems do.

Finally, your complain about "four states governing the entire election" as a suggestion that California, New York, Texas and Florida would decide the election in a popular-vote scenario is just kind of silly. First off, even if somehow a candidate were to lock up 100% of the vote in those four states, they'd still only have about 1/3rd of the total national popular vote, so they'd need to add on the next seven largest states and get 100% in all of them to win. Second, as a general rule, in any large state the minority party usually gets about forty percent of the vote, so even if Party A gets 60% of the vote in the eleven largest states they still aren't anywhere near close to winning. Third, in a popular vote scenario every vote matters equally, so parties would be incentivized to chase votes in every state, rather than the current state of affairs where the Democrats barely bother campaigning in Alabama and Mississippi and the GOP presidential operation in California and New York is usually a ghost town. And fourth, if you're terrified about small states being overpowered in the electoral college, it's not like they still don't have the Senate. (Granted, I think the Senate is a bad idea too, but then again I think the "we need to protect small states" argument is mostly crap at the source anyway.)
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
mbmbmbmbmb
Sarxis wrote:
Sorry if I spoke and quoted truth harshly here.

But if you ignore it, you'll wish for these days again once you see what comes after:

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God." Hebrews 10


Seriously, how can you quote that and think it favors Trump?
10 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think the founding fathers ever envisioned an 8000% population ration difference between two different states.

The original 1st amendment specified on representative per 50,000 citizens. If it had passed, we would probably have a number much higher than 435 congressional representatives.

If we were only as representationally democratic as the government we set up in iraq, we would have 380 congressional representatives from california.

Wow.

That that MIGHT be the way out the next time democrats have power. Increase the number of congressional representatives. This will make the electoral college have more votes for states with higher populations and doesn't require a constitutional amendment.

Say we had 1 representative per 500,000 voters. That would give California 76 congressional representatives and Wyoming would have 1.

If we had 1 representative per 250,000 voters, California would have 154 electoral votes and Wyoming would have 4.

The small state advantage in the senate would be balanced by a more representative government in the House. And the larger number of representatives would be MUCH MORE expensive to bribe and control.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
For BJ.....
mb
What I love is the common refrain by Trump supporters when one points out that he's got a lot of support from White Nationalists (or outright racists, like Spencer), is the rebuttal-

"You're calling all Trump supporters racists!!!'

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that Trump panders to racists, for reasons that are honestly opaque to me. Either he supports their rhetoric, wants their support is just pandering, or is frankly just ignorant about a lot of what they're saying. Who knows?

That doesn't mean that any random Trump voter automatically agrees with these assholes. I get that Trump voters had a lot of different reasons to want to vote for him- from wanting to prevent Hilary to become President, to wanting a voice in government that they feel has been denied them for too long. Fine.

But in the desire to want to roll back 'SJW's', some Trump supporters have embraced some real pricks- and this seems to include Trump himself, with his constant retweeting of a bunch of stuff from the murky depths of the alt-Right community.

Not all Trump supporters are White Nationalists, but all White Nationalists are Trump supporters....

Darilian
21 
 Thumb up
0.06
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
mbmbmbmbmb
Terwox wrote:
Sarxis wrote:
Sorry if I spoke and quoted truth harshly here.

But if you ignore it, you'll wish for these days again once you see what comes after:

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God." Hebrews 10


Seriously, how can you quote that and think it favors Trump?

Um, because the poster has demonstrated in the past that he is barking mad.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
mbmbmbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:


Americans, regardless of ideology, have a tough time accepting the fact that their political system is really, really badly designed - and the bad design is understandable because it was designed by a bunch of rich landowners and slaveholders over two hundred years ago who never really anticipated what would happen if slavery became illegal, let alone massive population/wealth increases/imbalances, technological advances, etc.


It's sure as shit not how I would design it if we were starting from scratch!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Terwox wrote:
Sarxis wrote:
Sorry if I spoke and quoted truth harshly here.

But if you ignore it, you'll wish for these days again once you see what comes after:

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God." Hebrews 10


Seriously, how can you quote that and think it favors Trump?


Why do you think I THINK it favors Trump? That's so odd.

"Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all." Acts chapter 10
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.