Cont: Biden for President? Pt 2

[Delphic Oracle]

Nope, whether or not a voter feels better off doesn't negate objective facts. Ignoring your cancer because it feels better to ignore it doesn't negate your cancer.

No, but it will impact whether they elect (ahem) to receive treatment.

Irrationality, impulsivity, and biases exist. There is a place for unraveling some kinds of that (inflexibly religious, hopelessly racist, perhaps not so much). It might work better than regurgitating facts over and over like we've been trying for decades.

 

[thaiboxerken]

And yet, in another sense, the pandemic created Biden!

DO YOU SEE IT?!

:9

I agree. If Trump had any semblance of a competent response to the pandemic, no Democrat would've stood a chance in this election.

 

[theprestige]

Huh? You mean the truth doesn't matter?

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 12.

LOL. Truth matters. But what matters to a voter on voting day is their perception of the truth. Hopefully the two are pretty closely aligned. But going into the voting booth, if the voter feels like they're better off, none of your arguments about why they're not truly better off will matter. Especially if they haven't heard your arguments. How many people have you talked to in the past three months, correcting their perception and changing their vote?

 

[theprestige]

Nope, whether or not a voter feels better off doesn't negate objective facts. Ignoring your cancer because it feels better to ignore it doesn't negate your cancer.

How a voter feels affects how they're going to vote. You arguing here that their perception is wrong isn't going to change their perception or change their vote. This is discussion about how people are voting, and why.

Arguments today about what people should perceive, no matter how rational and accurate, aren't going to change people's actual perceptions, and aren't going to change the outcome of the vote tomorrow.

I'm not saying people are right to feel better off. I'm saying that if people do feel better off, they're going to vote on that basis. They're not going to vote on the basis of how you think they should feel.

 

[Resume]

How a voter feels . . .

Has no bearing on the objective reality. The facts are that this administration's bungling pandemic response is demonstrated in the abysmal data. Violence encouraged by the idiot in chief has inspired political violence. These are facts and the country is worse off for them.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Wow amazing how talkative the "Totally not a Trumpers" are when we're discussing some esoteric side debate about definitions and where to draw lines.

 

[xjx388]

A: "I feel like I'm better off now than I was 4 years ago."

B: "But you aren't better off! Look at the political violence in this country! Look at the fact that Trump ignores science! No way you are better off, you just feel that way."

A: "Uh . . . yeah, I do feel that way because I'm making more money AND I get to work from home, my 401k is better than it's ever been, my taxes are lower, I got a bunch of free money, I'm spending more time with the kids . . . I'm definitely happier than I was.
I haven't been affected by political violence and I don't care what Trump says, I follow the science for me and my family."

B: "Nuh-uh! You just don't know how bad you have it."

---
You can make a good argument that the country, by objective measures, isn't better off than 4 years ago. Fine. You can't argue, however, against the fact that some people are indeed better off than they were and that they are allowed to feel that way despite whatever is happening in the country as a whole. Now, maybe you can argue that they are being selfish by not looking at the country as a whole. Whatever. When they get in the voting booth, your feelings are not going to change a damn thing; their subjective feelings trump everything.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

A: "I feel like I'm better off now than I was 4 years ago."

B: "But you aren't better off! Look at the political violence in this country! Look at the fact that Trump ignores science! No way you are better off, you just feel that way."

A: "Uh . . . yeah, I do feel that way because I'm making more money AND I get to work from home, my 401k is better than it's ever been, my taxes are lower, I got a bunch of free money, I'm spending more time with the kids . . . I'm definitely happier than I was.
I haven't been affected by political violence and I don't care what Trump says, I follow the science for me and my family."

B: "Nuh-uh! You just don't know how bad you have it."

---
You can make a good argument that the country, by objective measures, isn't better off than 4 years ago. Fine. You can't argue, however, against the fact that some people are indeed better off than they were and that they are allowed to feel that way despite whatever is happening in the country as a whole. Now, maybe you can argue that they are being selfish by not looking at the country as a whole. Whatever. When they get in the voting booth, your feelings are not going to change a damn thing; their subjective feelings trump everything.

I've yet to meet, in my travels, this mythical "average person" and yet they are invoked frequently, seeming both everywhere and yet nowhere.

 

[Resume]

You can make a good argument that the country, by objective measures, isn't better off than 4 years ago.

Which is my argument, thanks for noticing. As for the straw you raked, perhaps you might contact Trump as he has a job for you.

 

[Resume]

I've yet to meet, in my travels, this mythical "average person" and yet they are invoked frequently, seeming both everywhere and yet nowhere.

I think the term you are searching for is straw person.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Even worse, when the "economy" is on an upswing, telling an impoverished person about it can sound like "why hasn't your situation improved?"

ETA: it is also true people will feel beating the average is because of their superior savvy, but underperforming the average is because they've been cheated.

 

[theprestige]

IA drunk working on his third double Jack Daniels probably feels pretty good, and his liver, what liver?

What's going to decide whether he finishes that third double? His good feeling, or your concerns about his liver?

Again, the topic of the thread is "Biden for President?"

And the answer to that is gonna be based on how people feel. It's not going to be based on how you think they should feel, no matter how factual and correct your thoughts on the subject happen to be.

 

[Joe Random]

A: "I feel like I'm better off now than I was 4 years ago."

B: "But you aren't better off! Look at the political violence in this country! Look at the fact that Trump ignores science! No way you are better off, you just feel that way."

A: "Uh . . . yeah, I do feel that way because I'm making more money AND I get to work from home, my 401k is better than it's ever been, my taxes are lower, I got a bunch of free money, I'm spending more time with the kids . . . I'm definitely happier than I was.
I haven't been affected by political violence and I don't care what Trump says, I follow the science for me and my family."

B: "Nuh-uh! You just don't know how bad you have it."

---
You can make a good argument that the country, by objective measures, isn't better off than 4 years ago. Fine. You can't argue, however, against the fact that some people are indeed better off than they were and that they are allowed to feel that way despite whatever is happening in the country as a whole. Now, maybe you can argue that they are being selfish by not looking at the country as a whole. Whatever. When they get in the voting booth, your feelings are not going to change a damn thing; their subjective feelings trump everything.

Granted I'm just a single data-point, but ...

By all financial/job security measures I am (quite) better off than I was four years ago, however I see that as being in spite of Trump and not because of him. And I see the worse off condition of the nation as a whole. So even though I might be better off now (or at least strongly feel I am), there was zero hesitation when I cast my early ballot against Trump. I can't believe I'm the only person to be in that position ; time will tell how many of us there are, I guess.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I think the term you are searching for is straw person.

No, it isnt.

Do you want to attempt making a point?

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's the Hedonism Paradox.

As a species and a culture we really, really suck at gauging our own happiness.

 

[Resume]

What's going to decide whether he finishes that third double? His good feeling, or your concerns about his liver?

His fee-fees of course. Those have nothing to to with his cirrhosis however.

And the answer to that is gonna be based on how people feel. It's not going to be based on how you think they should feel, no matter how factual and correct your thoughts on the subject happen to be.

My response was to correct the notion that being "better off" means more than just a bit of change in your pocket. I wouldn't hope to change Trump voter's minds.

 

[Venom]

A: "I feel like I'm better off now than I was 4 years ago."

B: "But you aren't better off! Look at the political violence in this country! Look at the fact that Trump ignores science! No way you are better off, you just feel that way."

A: "Uh . . . yeah, I do feel that way because I'm making more money AND I get to work from home, my 401k is better than it's ever been, my taxes are lower, I got a bunch of free money, I'm spending more time with the kids . . . I'm definitely happier than I was.
I haven't been affected by political violence and I don't care what Trump says, I follow the science for me and my family."

B: "Nuh-uh! You just don't know how bad you have it."

---
You can make a good argument that the country, by objective measures, isn't better off than 4 years ago. Fine. You can't argue, however, against the fact that some people are indeed better off than they were and that they are allowed to feel that way despite whatever is happening in the country as a whole. Now, maybe you can argue that they are being selfish by not looking at the country as a whole. Whatever. When they get in the voting booth, your feelings are not going to change a damn thing; their subjective feelings trump everything.

Well yeah, that just shows how shallow and uncritical most voters are.

 

[Resume]

No, it isnt.

Do you want to attempt making a point?

I was speaking to the idea of an "Average Person" being thrown around, which often reads like an imaginative fiction invented to "prove" a poster's point, rather than an accurate characterization.

IOW, I was agreeing with your assessment.

 

[xjx388]

Which is my argument, thanks for noticing. As for the straw you raked, perhaps you might contact Trump as he has a job for you.

What straw? Your posts indicate a certain incredulity: That a person (A in my post) can factually be and subjectively feel better off on a personal level even if there are other big problems in the country as a whole.

 

[xjx388]

His fee-fees of course. Those have nothing to to with his cirrhosis however.



My response was to correct the notion that being "better off" means more than just a bit of change in your pocket. I wouldn't hope to change Trump voter's minds.

No. In your mind, "being 'better off' means more than just a bit of change in your pocket." And that's fine. But other people -and this may come as bit of a shock- think differently than you do. I know it's crazy, but it's still true.