Were social justice warriors responsible for the election outcome?

[TaraJo]

I can't help but look at the election results and think, in hindsight, I can't be too surprised.  

Since about 2012 or so, the SJW's have been on the rise; the jerks who use progressive sounding, virtuous buzzwords to justify being jerks.  Before, they were always on the fringe for everyone to laugh at their absurdity.  You can go to Tumblr and find them all over the place and they're increasingly getting more influential on twitter.  But lately, they've been getting more noticed, especially on college campuses.  

It feels like suicide for the democrats and even for the reasonable republicans.  I mean, seriously: white people, like it or not, are the majority here, but in this election cycle, these people turned "white male" into an insult in the name of progressivism.  I don't know how they think a democracy works, but you don't win elections by insulting the majority.  Not to mention, there's the boy-who-cried-wolf effect: we've gotten so used to bratty college kids calling everything racism that when Trump is saying or doing things that are genuinely racist, we ignore it.  Racism is a term that's so over-used that it lost its meaning, opening the doors for legitimate, serious racism.

And the kicker?  Hillary focused on them but ignored the rust belt states that used to be the backbone of the democratic party.  Yeah, the middle class factory workers in Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.  Their jobs are suddenly being outsourced to Asian sweatshops and they aren't exactly trained to work the jobs that are replacing them.  Yet, instead of talking about those issues, progressives are dismissing them because they're "white males."  Instead of listening to their concerns, their worries, their issues, they're being chastised for not memorizing a 19-year-old's ten sylable gender identity that he just came up with last week.  Trump, to his credit, actually showed concern for them, claiming he'll back out of Nafta and bring manufacturing back from China (I don't think he'll actually be able to do either, but at least he's showing concern).  You want to flip this election around, have Hillary address labor issues, manufacturing jobs, things like that, and don't just cater to a bunch of spoiled college kids.

[brewer]

I'd make a comment but I don't want to put up with, and am tired of, the drama backlash.

[ReptilianPeon]

Since about 2012 or so, the SJW's have been on the rise; the jerks who use progressive sounding, virtuous buzzwords to justify being jerks.  

Sums up Slate, Vox, The Daily Beast and all of the other Hilary Cheerleaders in the media. They masquerade as being "left wing" whilst at the same time defending everything Hilary does. Hilary is a Republican on everything except for social issues. She was even considering a Republican for SCOTUS.

[Aegon]

I think the ultimate blame lies on Hillary and the DNC. But yeah, I think "liberal intolerance" as I call it was a factor. This is what happens when you don't take people seriously: they get mad and elect Donald J Trump as POTUS

[vorlon13]

Focusing on just one of the thousands of self inflicted (cumulatively lethal) paper cuts isn't productive.

If we're looking for a 'meta-cause' beyond the e-mail server, Anthony Weiner's weiner, Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, Monica Lewinski, Donna Brazile, the Podesta wikileak, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, lying about confidential materials, premium increases triggering Obamacare death spiral, pay for play, Hillary's decades long inaction about high polling negatives, Bill Clinton's diarrhea of the mouth more than once, and I could go on and on, then in my view it comes down to fundamentally Hillary had mixed feelings about being president. I can't believe with her political savvy and high intelligence, anything could have destroyed her candidacy other than her internal baseline motivations for the presidency never hitting that 110% level 'real' winners who want to win and do win display while they are winning their win winningly.

She didn't want it bad enough and fucked it and the rest of us. It was ALWAYS hers to lose, and she did.

[ReptilianPeon]

I warned people not to underestimate Donald but people were like "hahaha Hilary is going to be president and there is nothing anybody can do about it". When I pointed out neo-liberalism is hurting millions and making them angry and that we should listen to the concerns of the poor I got told I love Donald. Well how did being smug and arrogant work out for you Hillary Bots?

[John V]

@OP: there was more to it than that, but yes, that was a big part of it. 

It used to be that we could disagree with each other, but still listen to and understand each other. Recall (if you're old enough) All in the Family. It was clearly liberal in view and didn't portray opposing views in a positive light, but it did at least portray those views so that discussion could take place. Now, many on the left prefer to shut down discussion by playing the bigot card at the drop of a hat. 

A few days ago on FB, a woman reposted the Chris Ball attack picture. I told her it was looking like a hoax. She told me to go iron my white sheets.

Here's the thing. You know those quizzes online that plot you on the political spectrum? I consistently score just slightly right of center. IIRC there's one that goes from -7 on the left to +7 on the right, and I score +.25 or +.5. The point is that I'm not far right, but she's so far left that even the center appears far right to her. 

I've been trying to tell them that if they keep this mindset up, they might get 8 years of Trump instead of 4, but not many want to hear it.

Consider immigration. For a few years now, and pretty heavily this summer during the campaign, there have been reports of crime caused by refugees and immigrants coming out of Europe. The refugees/immigrants are frequently Muslims from the Middle East. Many Americans see that and think I don't want that here. So far we've been largely isolated from it. Let's keep it that way. These people don't think of themselves as racist deplorables. Calling them that shuts down discussion and makes it less likely they'll vote along with those calling them that.

Even if they think they're racist deplorables, it's obviously bad strategy to say that. So, why do they keep saying it, even after losing to Donald fucking Trump? 

And guess what - in our system, it boils down to a choice between two candidates. The KKK is going to vote for one of them. That doesn't make every other person who voted that way akin to the KKK. That should be common sense, but some on the left are actually making that argument.

[Crossless2.0]

I can't help but look at the election results and think, in hindsight, I can't be too surprised.  

Since about 2012 or so, the SJW's have been on the rise; the jerks who use progressive sounding, virtuous buzzwords to justify being jerks.  Before, they were always on the fringe for everyone to laugh at their absurdity.  You can go to Tumblr and find them all over the place and they're increasingly getting more influential on twitter.  But lately, they've been getting more noticed, especially on college campuses.  

It feels like suicide for the democrats and even for the reasonable republicans.  I mean, seriously: white people, like it or not, are the majority here, but in this election cycle, these people turned "white male" into an insult in the name of progressivism.  I don't know how they think a democracy works, but you don't win elections by insulting the majority.  Not to mention, there's the boy-who-cried-wolf effect: we've gotten so used to bratty college kids calling everything racism that when Trump is saying or doing things that are genuinely racist, we ignore it.  Racism is a term that's so over-used that it lost its meaning, opening the doors for legitimate, serious racism.

And the kicker?  Hillary focused on them but ignored the rust belt states that used to be the backbone of the democratic party.  Yeah, the middle class factory workers in Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.  Their jobs are suddenly being outsourced to Asian sweatshops and they aren't exactly trained to work the jobs that are replacing them.  Yet, instead of talking about those issues, progressives are dismissing them because they're "white males."  Instead of listening to their concerns, their worries, their issues, they're being chastised for not memorizing a 19-year-old's ten sylable gender identity that he just came up with last week.  Trump, to his credit, actually showed concern for them, claiming he'll back out of Nafta and bring manufacturing back from China (I don't think he'll actually be able to do either, but at least he's showing concern).  You want to flip this election around, have Hillary address labor issues, manufacturing jobs, things like that, and don't just cater to a bunch of spoiled college kids.

The thing SJWs don't seem to get is that the sort of change they wish to effect does not and will not come around by braying in the streets and demonizing everyone who isn't immediately on board with their agendas. Look at what happened in the case of gay marriage. This wasn't directly the result of street protests but came about with a sea change in public attitudes when a significant number of straight people realized that they had loved ones, neighbors, and colleagues for whom this was an important issue. The battle was won in the courts, but the ground had been prepared in countless living rooms and dining room tables throughout the country.

I completely agree that the Democratic party, which used to be the bread-and-butter issues party, has become unmoored. Today they are the party of corporate and banking concerns that dabbles in identity politics to shore up their 'progressive' bona fides. The only real difference between them and the Republicans seems to be which group of intolerant jerks they pander to at election time. PC intolerance is just as obnoxious and poisonous, in my opinion, as right-wing intolerance.

Sadly, I don't know what can be done about the marginalized workers in the rust belt. That horse left the barn a long time ago, and both parties are to blame.

[John V]

I can't believe with her political savvy and high intelligence, anything could have destroyed her candidacy other than her internal baseline motivations for the presidency never hitting that 110% level 'real' winners who want to win and do win display while they are winning their win winningly.

She didn't want it bad enough and fucked it and the rest of us.  It was ALWAYS hers to lose, and she did.

Maybe she wanted it, but the alt right was on to something regarding health/alcohol abuse issues.

[Divinity]

Ahh yes, the poor 'white male' oppressed much like the Christians in this nation. It's not fair that Hillary focused on college kids--never mind that our college kids are in debt up to their throats (many of whom are white males btw) . Hillary should focus on white male issues more, becuase they're the majority like it or not! "This is a Christian Nation!" That's what it sounds like. I mean give me a fucking break. This is so fucking stupid. All the Republicans give a damn about is 'what about me? What about mine?" Shit, You think a President is going to bring back your jobs, then you're an idiot.

Manufacturing isn't coming back. Coal is naturally dying. And it'd be fucking stupid to think otherwise. I'm sure it's nice for the idiots to hear. They want to think someone is going to chase away all the mean brown people who are 'taking their jobs'. Because they're the majority dammit! Oh yeah, and Coal is bad for our environment. Only the complete morons think otherwise. But they don't give a fuck about none of that--who cares if Florida is underwater in 100 years? These fuckers won't live to see it so it's cool with them! World's ending anyway according to the Jesus freaks.

Hillary didn't lose because she didn't focus on 'white males' enough. She lost because FBI Director Comey made a political move, and because the DNC was brazenly stupid to show bias to a candidate that was going to win without their help.