Poll of the Day > How is Trump's Approval rating still at 45%?

(+) Yeah! (+)

OhhhJa posted...

You're both fighting over what amounts to something that's relatively unpredictable with tiny sample sizes for all variables.

A national election is anything but a small sample size. That's one of the largest sample sizes possible.

OhhhJa posted...

I know you pride yourself with your statistics knowledge so you should admit that even *gasp* you could be wrong and trump could be reelected.

When did I say that it's impossible for Trump to be re-elected?

We don't even know who his opponent will be and, as the old saying goes, two weeks is an eternity in politics. Trying to guess the probable election outcomes this far out is a mug's game.

The only thing that I was originally responding to was PO's assertion that the constant outrage over Trump has tuned out all but the hardcore Democrats, thereby helping Trump; the skyhigh participation in the midterms shows that is wrong. It doesn't guarantee that Trump won't be re-elected - and I never suggested it did, so I have no idea where you got that idea - but it does put paid to the idea that most people have "tuned out".

OhhhJa posted...

After all, the polls last time suggested he had virtually no chance and we saw how that worked out.

If you're going to start quoting statistics, you should at least look up the ones you're citing.

No, the polls did not say that Trump had "virtually no chance". The reputable polling outfits had the odds of Hillary winning at roughly 70%, give or take ~5%. She was definitely the odds-on favourite, but Trump's odds of winning were far from non-existent (to contrast, in Obama's re-election campaign he ended with a ~90% chance of winning).

Moreover, the polls were actually pretty accurate when you actually dig down in the details. Hillary was polling ahead in the popular vote by about 3%, and that's almost exactly where she wound up. There were no states that made a huge jump over to Trump that completely defied the polling numbers - when you factor in the margin of error, the results were very much within what was statistically expected. Basically, based on the numbers from before the election, one of three results was expected: a marginal Trump victory, a marginal Clinton victory (the most likely result), or a significant Clinton victory.

And make no mistake Trump's victory was extraordinarily marginal. The electoral college masked it pretty well, but this was probably the closest presidential election in the country's history other than Bush vs. Gore. Trump barely scraped out a win in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. If 50,000 people in those states - or about half a football stadium - had swapped their votes, we would be saying "Madame President" right now.

The idea that Trump's win was some great statistical anomaly is a myth, perpetrated by those who either don't understand statistics or don't understand how elections work.

OhhhJa posted...

Also, in reference to him winning by the skin of his teeth, Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 to al gore and still got elected again in 2004

Bush's popularity also skyrocketed after 9/11, with his approval ratings topping out at an eye-popping 90%, and it enjoyed smaller blips after the initial invasion of Iraq and the capture of Saddam Hussein. By contrast, Trump has literally never been more popular than he was on election day; his approval has dropped among all political affiliations, and is currently somewhere between ~37% and 42%, which is roughly where Bush's was during the start of the financial crisis (and you saw what happened the following election to the Republicans).

See previous comment about calling elections this far out, but those are two very different scenarios.
---

darkknight109 posted...

No, the polls did not say that Trump had "virtually no chance". The reputable polling outfits...

It just occurred to me that while I recall a lot of people calling it a shoe in for Hillary I do not believe I looked at any actual odds predictions. What polling outfits are you looking at?

IronicFool posted...

darkknight109 posted...

No, the polls did not say that Trump had "virtually no chance". The reputable polling outfits...

It just occurred to me that while I recall a lot of people calling it a shoe in for Hillary I do not believe I looked at any actual odds predictions. What polling outfits are you looking at?

I watched several, and I'd be lying if I said I remembered all of them. There was one site that was a really good aggregator of the major ones, but I don't remember what it was. I also recall that fivethirtyeight had a pretty good summary that they kept updated with the latest poll numbers in addition to their own statistical models.
---

darkknight109 posted...

I watched several, and I'd be lying if I said I remembered all of them. There was one site that was a really good aggregator of the major ones, but I don't remember what it was. I also recall that fivethirtyeight had a pretty good summary that they kept updated with the latest poll numbers in addition to their own statistical models.

Hmmm...think I'll satisfy my own curiosity and actually go check the other projections out. Although a cursory glance at fivethirtyeight does show exactly what you are saying above.

What do you expect when 26% of the population believes that the sun revolves around earth?
---

Foppe posted...

What do you expect when 26% of the population believes that the sun revolves around earth?

That's millennials for ya.
---

IronicFool posted...

Zeus posted...

What the fuck are you babbling about?

Are you one of those people who comes into a topic, doesn't read the whole topic, and then is confused by what's going on and thinks everyone else is off the mark?

Are you one of those people who thinks people proposed things that they didn't and then gets confused when you're called out on doing that?

darkknight109 posted...

I notice you still haven't responded in that other topic by the way, so I'll re-ask my question here: did you think Trump was being racist when he called immigrant gang members "not people" and "animals"? I mean, a lot of the Democrats thought so and you did say that "animal" and calling people less than human was a racial slur, so I'm just wondering if you agree with them that Trump was really racist.

I think he's a 70 year-old man who lived through many iterations of political correctness so he's likely to misstep by accident as he is to not give a fuck. I have to ask if you feel that the elderly -- who grew up in a vastly different era -- should be held to the same political correctness standard as kids who grew up in an age when implications are readily understood? I'm as anti-PC as they come, but even I recognize that referring to people as animals has strong racist connotations and don't use it. Likewise, if somebody in their 90s says "colored" instead of "black" I'm going to react differently than if somebody in their 20s refers to somebody as "colored" instead of "black".

slacker03150 posted...

The polls last time suggested he had a good chance. Most of the media reading the polls were the ones who thought Hilary being favored within the margin of error meant she was going to win easily. I remember a few left wing commenters screaming from the roof tops that Hillary was a weak candidate and Trump had a real shot. And even then she won the popular vote by almost 3 million. Right around what the polls were predicting. It just split in a way that favoured Trump.

The polls put Trump well-behind Hillary even though the margins were slim. It wasn't a "good chance," it was merely "some chance."
---

Zeus posted...

I think he's a 70 year-old man who lived through many iterations of political correctness so he's likely to misstep by accident as he is to not give a fuck. I have to ask if you feel that the elderly -- who grew up in a vastly different era -- should be held to the same political correctness standard as kids who grew up in an age when implications are readily understood? I'm as anti-PC as they come, but even I recognize that referring to people as animals has strong racist connotations and don't use it. Likewise, if somebody in their 90s says "colored" instead of "black" I'm going to react differently than if somebody in their 20s refers to somebody as "colored" instead of "black".

He may have grown up in different times, but he probably should watch what he says when hes in a position such as the one hes in. Hes not just someones old grandpa who people can ignore. Hes in a position of power. Just because he grew up in a time where stuff like that was normal and ok doesnt mean it is now. And I would definitely hold him to the same standards. Doesnt matter what your age in is his position.
---

Zeus posted...

Are you one of those people who thinks people proposed things that they didn't and then gets confused when you're called out on doing that?

Nope! But you assumed that I assumed you were proposing something in your post. Instead, go back and read it as someone responding to what you said, directed at the person they were already talking to, and not directed back at you.

I wasn't saying you proposed anything, I was tying what you said back into the post that did propose something. This would be like if two people were arguing, you came up and made a comment tangentially related to that argument, one person said something in response to your comment meant to disparage the other side, and you were confused about why they were saying that, in spite of hearing the whole conversation and having the benefit of context. I mean, you didn't propose anything, someone else did, I made a direct reference to that proposition, and you still think I was accusing you of proposing something and wasn't still making fun of the other poster?
---

Zeus, is the type to join a radical Evangelical group, is it really so shocking he's supporting racist speech, again, ok?
---

WastelandCowboy posted...

ClarkDuke posted...

Zeus, is the type to join a radical Evangelical group, is it really so shocking he's supporting racist speech, again, ok?

He does have a point. Depending on the generation and time you grew up in, you may have had more exposure to the environment in which people commonly said colored, negro, or even blackie as these terms were common in the mid-1900s. As someone who was a child in the 90s and grew up in the 2000s, these terms are completely insensitive and offensive, but thats just because I was raised in an environment that disapproved of these terms.

For someone who grew up in the 20s, 30s, 40s, or even 50s, these terms were very common and the environment was welcoming to them, despite their possible negative connotations.

his father was in the KKK, his proclivity is predictable, ok?
---

WastelandCowboy posted...

ClarkDuke posted...

WastelandCowboy posted...

ClarkDuke posted...

Zeus, is the type to join a radical Evangelical group, is it really so shocking he's supporting racist speech, again, ok?

He does have a point. Depending on the generation and time you grew up in, you may have had more exposure to the environment in which people commonly said colored, negro, or even blackie as these terms were common in the mid-1900s. As someone who was a child in the 90s and grew up in the 2000s, these terms are completely insensitive and offensive, but thats just because I was raised in an environment that disapproved of these terms.

For someone who grew up in the 20s, 30s, 40s, or even 50s, these terms were very common and the environment was welcoming to them, despite their possible negative connotations.

his father was in the KKK, ok?

Citation needed.

I kept it simple, ok?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-father-kkk-1927/
---

WastelandCowboy posted...

ClarkDuke posted...

WastelandCowboy posted...

ClarkDuke posted...

WastelandCowboy posted...

ClarkDuke posted...

Zeus, is the type to join a radical Evangelical group, is it really so shocking he's supporting racist speech, again, ok?

He does have a point. Depending on the generation and time you grew up in, you may have had more exposure to the environment in which people commonly said colored, negro, or even blackie as these terms were common in the mid-1900s. As someone who was a child in the 90s and grew up in the 2000s, these terms are completely insensitive and offensive, but thats just because I was raised in an environment that disapproved of these terms.

For someone who grew up in the 20s, 30s, 40s, or even 50s, these terms were very common and the environment was welcoming to them, despite their possible negative connotations.

his father was in the KKK, ok?

Citation needed.

I kept it simple, ok?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-father-kkk-1927/

Oh, you were referring to Trump. For some reason, I thought you were talking about Zeus dad.

Ah, I haven't the foggiest on the social behavior of Brett's, father, ok?
---

Only God knows.
---

WastelandCowboy posted...

ClarkDuke posted...

WastelandCowboy posted...

ClarkDuke posted...

WastelandCowboy posted...

ClarkDuke posted...

WastelandCowboy posted...

He does have a point. Depending on the generation and time you grew up in, you may have had more exposure to the environment in which people commonly said colored, negro, or even blackie as these terms were common in the mid-1900s. As someone who was a child in the 90s and grew up in the 2000s, these terms are completely insensitive and offensive, but thats just because I was raised in an environment that disapproved of these terms.

For someone who grew up in the 20s, 30s, 40s, or even 50s, these terms were very common and the environment was welcoming to them, despite their possible negative connotations.

his father was in the KKK, ok?

Citation needed.

I kept it simple, ok?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-father-kkk-1927/

Oh, you were referring to Trump. For some reason, I thought you were talking about Zeus dad.

Ah, I haven't the foggiest on the social behavior of Brett's, father, ok?

I am however, going to need source on why Zeus name is Brett.

He shared it during a rant, ok?
---

Zeus posted...

I think he's a 70 year-old man who lived through many iterations of political correctness so he's likely to misstep by accident as he is to not give a fuck. I have to ask if you feel that the elderly -- who grew up in a vastly different era -- should be held to the same political correctness standard as kids who grew up in an age when implications are readily understood?

Interesting non-answer. It's a really simple question: do you think he was being racist? Yes or no? "Yes, but..." or "No, but..." are also acceptable answers, but just saying "He's 70 years old" is a mealy-mouthed dodge.

I mean, you've said several times that you think calling someone an animal is racist. So that suggests to me that you think Donald Trump was also being racist when he called immigrant gang members "animals". Is that true or no?

By the way, it definitely wasn't an accident. He'd previously labelled those gang members "animals" and when numerous people pointed out the implications of that sort of language, he doubled down and made his "these are not human beings; these are animals" comment. You could make the argument that the first was an accidental slip, but when he repeats it after it was specifically pointed out to him? It's not unintentional at that point.

And to answer your own question, yes, I think people should be held to the same standard, regardless of their age. We're all in one society, after all, and my opinion of senior citizens is not so low that I think they're incapable of mentally comprehending societal changes. I grew up in an era where calling people a six-letter gay slur that I can't even write in its censored form on this site was so totally unremarkable it was used on children's TV shows. Where joking about getting raped (i.e. "Man, I totally got raped by that test! It was brutal!") was 100% normal. Where casual ethnic stereotypes like the lazy Mexican or the Magical Indian or the buck-toothed angry Chinese man were still extraordinarily common in children's entertainment. None of those things are acceptable today. I don't pretend that I'm somehow entitled to still use those because of some social grandfather clause that exempts me because of my age, because of course I don't, that's dumb.
---

Approval ratings.....based on polls that maybe .000067% of the population actually participated in.......of which .00000000000008% answered seriously.

#FakeNews

Always and forever.
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

Approval ratings.....based on polls that maybe .000067% of the population actually participated in.......of which .00000000000008% answered seriously.

Pictured: someone who does not understand how polling, sample sizes, and statistics in general work.
---

I asked my 10 friends if they approve Trump and only one said yes so it should be 10%, that's how statistics work don't @ me.
---

darkknight109 posted...

GreenKnight127 posted...

Approval ratings.....based on polls that maybe .000067% of the population actually participated in.......of which .00000000000008% answered seriously.

Pictured: someone who does not understand how polling, sample sizes, and statistics in general work.

14
---

15
---

...16?
---

I'm gonna go ahead and say 17.
---

Zeus posted...

I'm not sure if the topic is wondering why it's not higher or why it's not lower >_>

Right now, the economy is doing pretty good, we're somewhat winding down on wars, etc, so a large segment of the population -- the non-perpetually outraged section -- should be okay with Trump; well, if not for playing a role in the government shutdown.

Yeah fuck those kids locked up in camps, and people that are out of work because Trump is going to push this shutdown thing until the Democrats give him his $5 billion to build his stupid fucking wall that will do jack shit to stop anything. I swear the only people that should support Trump are people that are benefiting directly from his stupid shit like the company that will make bank building this wall.
---

I thought it was -45%~

Winning

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/14/donald-trump-orders-fast-food-white-house-clemson-football
---

LinkPizza posted...

Zeus posted...

I think he's a 70 year-old man who lived through many iterations of political correctness so he's likely to misstep by accident as he is to not give a fuck. I have to ask if you feel that the elderly -- who grew up in a vastly different era -- should be held to the same political correctness standard as kids who grew up in an age when implications are readily understood? I'm as anti-PC as they come, but even I recognize that referring to people as animals has strong racist connotations and don't use it. Likewise, if somebody in their 90s says "colored" instead of "black" I'm going to react differently than if somebody in their 20s refers to somebody as "colored" instead of "black".

He may have grown up in different times, but he probably should watch what he says when hes in a position such as the one hes in. Hes not just someones old grandpa who people can ignore. Hes in a position of power. Just because he grew up in a time where stuff like that was normal and ok doesnt mean it is now. And I would definitely hold him to the same standards. Doesnt matter what your age in is his position.

lolwut? PC word choice is an irrelevant matter in general and you can't reasonably expect somebody who didn't grow up with nonsense verbiage to be able to properly parrot that nonsense verbiage.

IronicFool posted...

Zeus posted...

Are you one of those people who thinks people proposed things that they didn't and then gets confused when you're called out on doing that?

Nope! But you assumed that I assumed you were proposing something in your post. Instead, go back and read it as someone responding to what you said, directed at the person they were already talking to, and not directed back at you.

I wasn't saying you proposed anything, I was tying what you said back into the post that did propose something. This would be like if two people were arguing, you came up and made a comment tangentially related to that argument, one person said something in response to your comment meant to disparage the other side, and you were confused about why they were saying that, in spite of hearing the whole conversation and having the benefit of context. I mean, you didn't propose anything, someone else did, I made a direct reference to that proposition, and you still think I was accusing you of proposing something and wasn't still making fun of the other poster?

@IronicFool O rly? Then why did you literally use the words "you propose"?

IronicFool posted...

Well, if you propose that most people are stupid to explain why the president has a 45% approval rating,

If you aren't claiming that I proposed something, why say "you propose"?

darkknight109 posted...

Interesting non-answer. It's a really simple question: do you think he was being racist? Yes or no? "Yes, but..." or "No, but..." are also acceptable answers, but just saying "He's 70 years old" is a mealy-mouthed dodge.

Once again we come to the issue of whenever you get anything other than the black/white response you want, you pretend that it's not an answer. The context around certain words has changed tremendously over the decades so there's a far greater implication when younger people use them *because* those younger people grew up exclusively in an age where said words had a different connotation.

darkknight109 posted...

And to answer your own question, yes, I think people should be held to the same standard, regardless of their age.

Then you have some issues.
---

Zeus posted...

lolwut? PC word choice is an irrelevant matter in general and you can't reasonably expect somebody who didn't grow up with nonsense verbiage to be able to properly parrot that nonsense verbiage.

Representatives represent, if they do not represent then they're not fit to be a representative. It's pretty simple stuff.

Zeus posted...

Once again we come to the issue of whenever you get anything other than the black/white response you want, you pretend that it's not an answer.

A little racist is still racist, the question is if he's white or any shade of grey up to and including black. If the answer is grey, say "yes, but...".
---

Zeus, is there a reason why you wait over a week in between your replies to a topic? Are you just kind of hoping no one notices so that you can get the last word in and notch it as a victory or something?

Zeus posted...

Once again we come to the issue of whenever you get anything other than the black/white response you want, you pretend that it's not an answer.

Because it's not. You literally have not answered the question of whether or not you think Trump's statement qualifies as racism or not.

I didn't say the answer had to be black and white - in fact, I figured you'd use this cop-out, which is why I specifically stated that "Yes, but..." and "No, but..." were completely acceptable answers. You can clarify your answer as much as you care to, and if you want to say "Yes, but it's not as racist as when a young person says it" that's your prerogative, but you still have to answer the question. All you've said is that you think Trump is a 70+ year old man - a nice factoid, but not an answer to the question.

It's like if someone asked me if Mike Pence hates gay people and I answered, "I think Mike Pence is a man who is married to a woman and who holds the office of Vice President. I think he has white hair and that he was elected in 2016." All true, all facts, not in any way an answer to the question asked.

Zeus posted...

Then you have some issues.

Why do you say that? Do you think seniors are just too old and dumb to understand changing social mores? Too senile to comprehend offence and disrespect?

Because that's mad ageist, bro. Have more respect for our senior citizens than that.

Or do you think that Trump is just too stupid to understand the implications behind his words, even after they've been pointed out to him? Maybe, instead of these continued dodges, you should just - y'know - answer the question.
---

Zeus posted...

If you aren't claiming that I proposed something, why say "you propose"?

you
/yoo,y/
pronoun
pronoun: you

1.
used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing.
"are you listening?"
used to refer to the person being addressed together with other people regarded in the same class.
"you Australians"
used in exclamations to address one or more people.
"you fools"
2.
used to refer to any person in general.
"after a while, you get used to it"
---

darkknight109 posted...

Zeus, is there a reason why you wait over a week in between your replies to a topic? Are you just kind of hoping no one notices so that you can get the last word in and notch it as a victory or something?

Only a few more days until he replies.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Zeus posted...

lolwut? PC word choice is an irrelevant matter in general and you can't reasonably expect somebody who didn't grow up with nonsense verbiage to be able to properly parrot that nonsense verbiage.

Representatives represent, if they do not represent then they're not fit to be a representative. It's pretty simple stuff.

The PC word police are a vocal minority, not a representative sample of the population.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Zeus posted...

Once again we come to the issue of whenever you get anything other than the black/white response you want, you pretend that it's not an answer.

A little racist is still racist, the question is if he's white or any shade of grey up to and including black. If the answer is grey, say "yes, but...".

Except it's not a "yes, but...".

darkknight109 posted...

Zeus, is there a reason why you wait over a week in between your replies to a topic? Are you just kind of hoping no one notices so that you can get the last word in and notch it as a victory or something?

We've gone through this a million times. I have a lot of stuff tagged at any given moment so something closer to the bottom of my queue takes longer to get back to. Given that you've heard this many times before, I'm not sure why you keep trying to advance your bullshit narrative which is ridiculous even at face value.

darkknight109 posted...

Because it's not. You literally have not answered the question of whether or not you think Trump's statement qualifies as racism or not.

Except I already have.
---

darkknight109 posted...

I didn't say the answer had to be black and white - in fact, I figured you'd use this cop-out, which is why I specifically stated that "Yes, but..." and "No, but..." were completely acceptable answers. You can clarify your answer as much as you care to, and if you want to say "Yes, but it's not as racist as when a young person says it" that's your prerogative, but you still have to answer the question. All you've said is that you think Trump is a 70+ year old man - a nice factoid, but not an answer to the question.

It's not really a "yes, but..." or a "no, but..." although it's probably closer to a "no, but..." because it's a contemporary connotation.

darkknight109 posted...

It's like if someone asked me if Mike Pence hates gay people and I answered, "I think Mike Pence is a man who is married to a woman and who holds the office of Vice President. I think he has white hair and that he was elected in 2016." All true, all facts, not in any way an answer to the question asked.

Which is a ridiculous comparison, even by your usual standard.

darkknight109 posted...

Why do you say that? Do you think seniors are just too old and dumb to understand changing social mores? Too senile to comprehend offence and disrespect?

There are far too many mores to reasonably expect anybody not born into them to keep track of them. Mores are a lot like memes, most times you're not even going to be aware they exist.

IronicFool posted...

Zeus posted...

If you aren't claiming that I proposed something, why say "you propose"?

you
/yoo,y/
pronoun
pronoun: you

1.
used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing.
"are you listening?"
used to refer to the person being addressed together with other people regarded in the same class.
"you Australians"
used in exclamations to address one or more people.
"you fools"
2.
used to refer to any person in general.
"after a while, you get used to it"

This is the lamest cover for a poster mistaking somebody for another that I've seen in my great many years on the internet.
---

Zeus posted...

This is the lamest cover for a poster mistaking somebody for another that I've seen in my great many years on the internet.

If pointing out the literal definition of the word in question is the lamest cover you've ever heard, then I imagine everyone else has some really solid reasons. Maybe I'll say 'one' instead of 'you' next time, so you won't be confused by my plebeian prole speak, given your much greater intelligence.

But I did go reread the original post I made quoting you, and it is indeed clear how one could think I mistook you for another poster I was arguing with, despite the fact that the line I quoted was essentially a summation of my posts up to that point. Clearly, I was mistaking you for the other person. That's why I used the word 'you'. Ignore the second definition of 'you' about any person in general, and ignore the conditional 'if' directly before the 'you' which would imply this second definition in context, clearly I mistook you for the other poster. How could I miss it? I mean, just look at this:

IronicFool posted...

Well, SINCE YOU PROPOSED, GameFAQS users GRTooCool and by short extension based on the following conversation Yellow, that most people are stupid to explain why the president has a 45% approval rating, I think it's safe to say you don't think it should be 45%.

How didn't I see it before? Clearly I am entirely in the wrong, you have bested me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyFQVZ2h0V8" data-time="
---

Now at 39% :O
---

Zeus posted...

Given that you've heard this many times before

Literally have never heard this before now, but nice assumption.

Zeus posted...

It's not really a "yes, but..." or a "no, but..." although it's probably closer to a "no, but..." because it's a contemporary connotation.

Then you're basically acknowledging that calling someone an animal isn't actually racist, depending on who's making the statement, which kind of shoots your original arguments in this topic in the foot.

You're also acknowledging that whether a specific slur is racist or not depends on who is saying it and that Trump gets a pass on this, for some bizarre reason, but that's a separate discussion.

Zeus posted...

Which is a ridiculous comparison, even by your usual standard.

Not really. You answered the question "Is this statement by Donald Trump racist?" by answering "I think Donald Trump is an old man." The answer doesn't even vaguely match the question.

Zeus posted...

There are far too many mores to reasonably expect anybody not born into them to keep track of them.

Conveniently ignoring that this more was pointed out to Trump after he first breached it and he pushed back with an even harder statement.

Not to mention, most seniors manage to do just fine at not being blithering racist idiots, despite not being "born into it", as you put it.
---

IronicFool posted...

Zeus posted...

This is the lamest cover for a poster mistaking somebody for another that I've seen in my great many years on the internet.

If pointing out the literal definition of the word in question is the lamest cover you've ever heard, then I imagine everyone else has some really solid reasons. Maybe I'll say 'one' instead of 'you' next time, so you won't be confused by my plebeian prole speak, given your much greater intelligence.

But I did go reread the original post I made quoting you, and it is indeed clear how one could think I mistook you for another poster I was arguing with, despite the fact that the line I quoted was essentially a summation of my posts up to that point. Clearly, I was mistaking you for the other person. That's why I used the word 'you'. Ignore the second definition of 'you' about any person in general, and ignore the conditional 'if' directly before the 'you' which would imply this second definition in context, clearly I mistook you for the other poster. How could I miss it? I mean, just look at this:

IronicFool posted...

Well, SINCE YOU PROPOSED, GameFAQS users GRTooCool and by short extension based on the following conversation Yellow, that most people are stupid to explain why the president has a 45% approval rating, I think it's safe to say you don't think it should be 45%.

How didn't I see it before? Clearly I am entirely in the wrong, you have bested me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyFQVZ2h0V8" data-time="

You're aware that going by that second dictionary definition, you're *still* wrong, right?

darkknight109 posted...

Literally have never heard this before now, but nice assumption.

Then you literally have a hearing/vision problem or a memory issue because I've brought this to you specifically, in addition to all of the other times I've discussed this.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Then you're basically acknowledging that calling someone an animal isn't actually racist, depending on who's making the statement, which kind of shoots your original arguments in this topic in the foot.

You're also acknowledging that whether a specific slur is racist or not depends on who is saying it and that Trump gets a pass on this, for some bizarre reason, but that's a separate discussion.

No, I'm pointing out that PC has moving goalposts and when you got into the game directly impacts roughly where those goalposts lie. Millennials and xers are generally pretty well-aware of the racial connotation. However, you're talking about a guy old enough to have grown up at a time when colored was the racially acceptable way to refer to blacks because people decided that the n-word was offensive. I'm also saying that the term "animal" has intrinsic undertones, but a person's understanding of those undertones directly impacts the significance of those terms. For instance, the n-word is currently so intrinsically offensive that it can't even be said in its true form under most circumstance. However, if a non-native, non-English speaker heard the word used and repeated it, you would hardly call him racist despite the n-word being widely viewed as one of the most racist words ever.

darkknight109 posted...

Not really. You answered the question "Is this statement by Donald Trump racist?" by answering "I think Donald Trump is an old man." The answer doesn't even vaguely match the question.

That's a very glib interpretation. It also completely misses the point.

darkknight109 posted...

Conveniently ignoring that this more was pointed out to Trump after he first breached it and he pushed back with an even harder statement.

Not to mention, most seniors manage to do just fine at not being blithering racist idiots, despite not being "born into it", as you put it.

Completely untrue, except in the most pigeonholey sense. The vast majority of seniors are un-PC in some area because PC has changed countless times in their lifetime.
---

Zeus posted...

You're aware that going by that second dictionary definition, you're *still* wrong, right?

Yes, I am aware that if someone thinks a 45% approval rating is due to most people being stupid, they are probably fine with a 45% approval rating and think that's exactly what it should be, neither higher nor lower, as you clearly articulated yourself in your first post of the topic. I already bowed out and conceded that you won, even going so far as to edit a video of all your friends congratulating you, just take the W dude.
---

IronicFool posted...

Zeus posted...

You're aware that going by that second dictionary definition, you're *still* wrong, right?

Yes, I am aware that if someone thinks a 45% approval rating is due to most people being stupid, they are probably fine with a 45% approval rating and think that's exactly what it should be, neither higher nor lower, as you clearly articulated yourself in your first post of the topic. I already bowed out and conceded that you won, even going so far as to edit a video of all your friends congratulating you, just take the W dude.

But are you aware that you suggested -- rather wrongly -- that I thought the such? When in fact the closest I came to remarking on it was when I joking implied that the only reason it wasn't higher is that people are stupid?
---

Zeus posted...

But are you aware that you suggested -- rather wrongly -- that I thought the such? When in fact the closest I came to remarking on it was when I joking implied that the only reason it wasn't higher is that people are stupid?

Yes, I thought that's what we were talking about. That even if using the definition of 'you' meaning "anyone in general" I said you specifically thought it was because people are stupid. The joking implication part you did came after that first post so naturally it wouldn't apply. It would be stupid to suggest otherwise.
---

Zeus posted...

Then you literally have a hearing/vision problem or a memory issue because I've brought this to you specifically, in addition to all of the other times I've discussed this.

Nope!

Zeus posted...

No, I'm pointing out that PC has moving goalposts and when you got into the game directly impacts roughly where those goalposts lie.

So why not say that in your original post? All you said is "Calling people animals is racist", not "Calling people animals is racist, as long as you were born after 1970. " I mean, shouldn't you be checking the ages of the posters you were trying to call out if that's your view? Or does that only apply to Donald Trump?

Plus, as I mentioned earlier, I haven't had any issues adopting to new social mores and neither have any of the seniors I know. The language that was commonplace when I was in high school would be considered extraordinarily offensive now, yet somehow I've managed to keep up with the times and change my idioms as necessary to avoid being an asshole.

Zeus posted...

However, you're talking about a guy old enough to have grown up at a time when colored was the racially acceptable way to refer to blacks because people decided that the n-word was offensive.

I'm also talking about the fucking President of the United States. Donald Trump isn't just "some random old guy", he occupies the highest office in the USA. I feel like a politician - nevermind the supposed-"leader of the free world" - should at least have enough capacity for understanding human social trends to avoid making such an easily avoidable gaffe.

I mean, I can't remember Obama screwing that up. Or Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, if you prefer someone in Trump's age demographic, yet Trump gets repeatedly stung by this sort of language and behaviour. That's not something that can - or should - be excused.

Zeus posted...

However, if a non-native, non-English speaker heard the word used and repeated it, you would hardly call him racist despite the n-word being widely viewed as one of the most racist words ever.

Fair point. Only one problem with it: Donald Trump isn't a non-native and despite his at-times torturous prose, English is his first language.

Yeah, if someone who can barely string a sentence together uses a racial slur because they're repeating something they heard in a song somewhere or something like that, that's understandable and eminently forgivable. But that's not what Trump was doing - he knew exactly what the connotations of that word, and that particular use of that word, were. We know that he knew it, because *people fucking pointed it out to him*. And then he used it again directly in response to them.

To tie it back to your analogy, if that barely-speaks-English foreigner says a racial slur that he didn't realize was offensive, you can chalk that up to simple ignorance. But if you explain to them that it's offensive, and explain *why* people don't use that word in polite company, and they continue to use it anyways they've lost that "I just didn't know any better" defence.

Zeus posted...

That's a very glib interpretation. It also completely misses the point.

So explain it. Elaborate and actually back up your argument. That's what I've been prompting you to do from my first post in this topic.

Zeus posted...

The vast majority of seniors are un-PC in some area

*citation needed*
---

IronicFool posted...

Zeus posted...

But are you aware that you suggested -- rather wrongly -- that I thought the such? When in fact the closest I came to remarking on it was when I joking implied that the only reason it wasn't higher is that people are stupid?

Yes, I thought that's what we were talking about. That even if using the definition of 'you' meaning "anyone in general" I said you specifically thought it was because people are stupid. The joking implication part you did came after that first post so naturally it wouldn't apply. It would be stupid to suggest otherwise.

My first post in the topic was my joking response, hence why all along I -- and others -- have assumed that you looked at the wrong person's post and confused it for me.

darkknight109 posted...

Nope!

Yep!

darkknight109 posted...

So why not say that in your original post? All you said is "Calling people animals is racist", not "Calling people animals is racist, as long as you were born after 1970. " I mean, shouldn't you be checking the ages of the posters you were trying to call out if that's your view? Or does that only apply to Donald Trump?

Even you must realize that you're suggesting something ludicrous.

darkknight109 posted...

Plus, as I mentioned earlier, I haven't had any issues adopting to new social mores and neither have any of the seniors I know. The language that was commonplace when I was in high school would be considered extraordinarily offensive now, yet somehow I've managed to keep up with the times and change my idioms as necessary to avoid being an asshole.

You're hardly a senior citizen. Most significant mores were the same from when you were growing up. More importantly, you almost certainly haven't kept up with emerging mores -- especially since some of which are hotly contested, like the assertion that "thug" is the new n-word.

darkknight109 posted...

I'm also talking about the fucking President of the United States. Donald Trump isn't just "some random old guy", he occupies the highest office in the USA. I feel like a politician - nevermind the supposed-"leader of the free world" - should at least have enough capacity for understanding human social trends to avoid making such an easily avoidable gaffe.

Irrelevant.

darkknight109 posted...

I mean, I can't remember Obama screwing that up. Or Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, if you prefer someone in Trump's age demographic, yet Trump gets repeatedly stung by this sort of language and behaviour. That's not something that can - or should - be excused.

O rly? You mean Bernie Sanders who talked about rounding up black men from street corners? Or Hillary Clinton who -- TWENTY years ago when she was a much younger woman -- described black youths as "super predators"? And, of course, Obama frequently bungled race relations but otherwise Obama is still young enough to have *grown up* with most of these mores so he's less affected anyway.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Fair point. Only one problem with it: Donald Trump isn't a non-native and despite his at-times torturous prose, English is his first language.

Yeah, if someone who can barely string a sentence together uses a racial slur because they're repeating something they heard in a song somewhere or something like that, that's understandable and eminently forgivable. But that's not what Trump was doing - he knew exactly what the connotations of that word, and that particular use of that word, were. We know that he knew it, because *people fucking pointed it out to him*. And then he used it again directly in response to them.

To tie it back to your analogy, if that barely-speaks-English foreigner says a racial slur that he didn't realize was offensive, you can chalk that up to simple ignorance. But if you explain to them that it's offensive, and explain *why* people don't use that word in polite company, and they continue to use it anyways they've lost that "I just didn't know any better" defence.

...because both sides of the analogy were deliberately extreme, since the n-word is a recognized universal taboo going back at least 70 years whereas the term "animal", which has a less strong connotation, only started to really develop its mainstream negative connection about 30 years ago (which, not for nothing, was right around the time that political figures were brazenly describing black youths as super predators, which is some shit that violates mores going back to around the turn of the century)

darkknight109 posted...

So explain it. Elaborate and actually back up your argument. That's what I've been prompting you to do from my first post in this topic.

I literally already did.

darkknight109 posted...

*citation needed*

Try leaving your home at some point and talking to them. Anybody who has seen PC change numerous times in their life isn't going to be square on everything. Even baby boomers (which includes a subsect younger than Trump, Hillary, etc) are still using terms like "orientals" which has since become an emerging taboo going back to... probably at least the 90s, if not before that. And before you argue that "oriental" is an overblown non-issue that nobody actually cares about, keep in mind that Obama signed a law banning the use of the word in government documents because he viewed it as offensive.
---

Zeus is functionally incapable of expounding on any of his beliefs, since everything is spoon fed to him, ok?

Lob him some softballs, darkknight109, his straw man and goalpost moving are stale, ok?
---

Zeus posted...

Yep!

Nope!

Zeus posted...

Even you must realize that you're suggesting something ludicrous.

I completely realize that, because the idea that old people get a pass on racism because "they're too old to understand it" or something, is inherently ludicrous. That's exactly what I'm trying to highlight for you, so I'm glad you at least partially understand it.

Zeus posted...

You're hardly a senior citizen. Most significant mores were the same from when you were growing up.

You don't know how old I am, so you don't actually have a basis for saying that. You're also wrong about most significant mores being from when I was growing up. I already posted this, but I'll say it again - when I was growing up, a six-letter gay slur was still being used in children's entertainment. I'm not talking about things like those famous Eddy Murphy comedy skits now, I'm talking actual children's-oriented entertainment. It just wasn't considered offensive back then (though "queer" was looked on much more negatively back then, albeit not to the same level that its alternative occupies today). When I was growing up, "rape" was a perfectly acceptable synonym for hardship or lopsided defeat, ("Man, I got raped by that test!" or "Boy, that local sports team just got raped yesterday"). Racial stereotypes like the lazy Mexican and the magical Indian were everywhere; hell, there were even still some cartoons running with blackface-style animation/humour. Those are not things that are acceptable today. I know that and I've managed to adjust.

I am curious, though - what age do you get your "Get out of Racism Free" card? How old and/or Republican do you have to be to be excused from racist statements?

Zeus posted...

More importantly, you almost certainly haven't kept up with emerging mores -- especially since some of which are hotly contested, like the assertion that "thug" is the new n-word.

You're projecting, Zeus. And yes, I'm well aware of the connotations of "thug" - as others have observed, that's a word that seems to get pitched at a very specific and narrow band of melanin-content and chromosomes.

Zeus posted...

Irrelevant.

No, it's definitely not irrelevant. The president is and should be held to a higher standard than a random hobo on a side street. He occupies an elevated position in society and so expectations of him are similarly elevated. People actually have good reason to pay attention to what he says, so he is expected to be up on his ability to make speeches that aren't in breach of social etiquette.

It baffles me that you think it doesn't matter whether or not a society's leader is actually up to speed on the social norms of the society he's supposed to be leading.

Zeus posted...

You mean Bernie Sanders who talked about rounding up black men from street corners?

Never heard of this, so I went looking for it and came up with nothing. Source or it didn't happen.
---

Zeus posted...

Or Hillary Clinton who -- TWENTY years ago when she was a much younger woman -- described black youths as "super predators"?

Twenty years ago when social mores were different? Isn't that the point of this entire topic - that social norms change?

Zeus posted...

...because both sides of the analogy were deliberately extreme, since the n-word is a recognized universal taboo going back at least 70 years whereas the term "animal", which has a less strong connotation, only started to really develop its mainstream negative connection about 30 years ago

None of which addresses anything in the point you're responding to. What I pointed out is - regardless of the nature of the slur you're talking about - someone loses their "I didn't know any better" defence the instant the slur is pointed out and explained to them.

Zeus posted...

I literally already did.

No, your response was always "I think Donald Trump is an old man." You never actually addressed whether you thought what he said was racist or not and it was only after several posts worth of prodding that you arrived at a tenuous "no" answer.

Which, as previously mentions, shoots a few holes in your earlier assertions in this topic, because it means that you can apparently make statements that are racist without those statements being racist just by dint of being old.

Zeus posted...

Try leaving your home at some point and talking to them.

Personal anecdotes are not citations. If you think they are, then here's my counterpoint: every senior citizen I've ever met (with one exception - a very bad alcoholic who has numerous life problems) understands evolving social mores and keeps on top of them.

Maybe you should just get out there and talk to non-shitty people for a change?
---

Zeus posted...

My first post in the topic was my joking response, hence why all along I -- and others -- have assumed that you looked at the wrong person's post and confused it for me.

Yes, and as a serious poster, I never joke. So I see where the confusion was. I'm glad we were able to get this misunderstanding resolved though.
---

Another week.
---

darkknight109 posted...

I completely realize that, because the idea that old people get a pass on racism because "they're too old to understand it" or something, is inherently ludicrous. That's exactly what I'm trying to highlight for you, so I'm glad you at least partially understand it.

Again, depends on the context. If somebody has been taught to say oriental instead of a previously offensive word all their life, it's harder than somebody who grew up knowing that oriental was arguably offensive (mind you, often more so to whites who take offense on behalf of Asians) and never used that term at all. Once you get a little older, maybe you'll understand.

And, of course, some words are harder stops than others.

darkknight109 posted...

You don't know how old I am

I know how old you aren't.

darkknight109 posted...

When I was growing up, "rape" was a perfectly acceptable synonym for hardship or lopsided defeat, ("Man, I got raped by that test!" or "Boy, that local sports team just got raped yesterday").

...and people are STILL using that then correcting themselves afterward, if it at all. All you're doing is showing what a moving target these things are.

darkknight109 posted...

I am curious, though - what age do you get your "Get out of Racism Free" card? How old and/or Republican do you have to be to be excused from racist statements?

Scaling slider depending on age. If you were over 100, a person could even get away with dropping n-bombs.

darkknight109 posted...

You're projecting, Zeus. And yes, I'm well aware of the connotations of "thug" - as others have observed, that's a word that seems to get pitched at a very specific and narrow band of melanin-content and chromosomes.

No, I'm not projecting. There's a CONSTANT push on new words all the time. There's no fucking possible way that you could keep up with everything unless you quit your job (and I'm assuming you're working -- I know you'll point out that I don't know whether you're working, which is true) and devote your entire life to it.... although even then you're likely to miss things.

darkknight109 posted...

No, it's definitely not irrelevant. The president is and should be held to a higher standard than a random hobo on a side street. He occupies an elevated position in society and so expectations of him are similarly elevated. People actually have good reason to pay attention to what he says, so he is expected to be up on his ability to make speeches that aren't in breach of social etiquette.

It baffles me that you think it doesn't matter whether or not a society's leader is actually up to speed on the social norms of the society he's supposed to be leading.

It's absolutely irrelevant given that the term is currently both less controversial and really known more to young people. And it baffles me that you think a society's leader should solely focus on studying lesser mores than actually governing.

darkknight109 posted...

Never heard of this, so I went looking for it and came up with nothing. Source or it didn't happen.

So you're basically pleading ignorance regarding the presidential primaries? That would explain a LOT, considering your apparent lack of political knowledge. You might also be surprised to learn that he insisted whites can't be poor.
---