“Shut up and accept the results of the election” isn’t an option for me

Yikes. Where to even start with this?

First of all, “you would have to be beyond clueless to think she was the only one who thought that way” isn’t based on data. That’s based on your belief and personal bias that a majority of the protesters are non-voters. But you don’t know that and you don’t have data to support that, aside from what you believe based upon what one person said in an article.

Second, people aren’t just protesting the results of the election: they’re protesting because they’re extremely concerned about their fundamental rights. Regardless of whether these protesters voted or not, they’re both allowed and obligated to care about their rights as humans and citizens. It’s fantastic that you’ve stood up for civil rights in the past — and nowhere in my response did I question that you’ve done so — but if you can decide to sit this one out, that’s a privilege — one that not all of us have.

If you think that other people can afford to sit this one out — or you think shouting at them and telling them they “deserve” this presidency is an effective, non-divisive approach — then I don’t honestly don’t know what else to say other than what I already said, which is this: Telling people to sit down and shut up causes more of the very disengagement and disenchantment you’re criticizing, not less.

And, let’s be clear: “Shut up and accept the results of the election” isn’t an option if you’re a Muslim who’s being told you’re going to be put on a registry (and that the Japanese internment camps set a precedent), an LGBTQ+ person concerned about Pence’s support for gay conversion/electroshock therapy, a Jew who sees Steven Bannon standing next to Trump, a person with a disability or cancer who relies on ACA to survive, an undocumented immigrant who’s threatened with deportation or incarceration, or any of the other groups who are threatened by Trump, his policies, and his new bevy of appointees, be they white supremacists, racists, or simply just dangerous and incompetent.

Those are life- and personhood threatening issues. “Sit down and shut up” isn’t an option for us. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If the thought hasn’t crossed your mind that you might need to leave the country, go into hiding, or conceal some part of your identity out of self-preservation in this new presidency — if you aren’t concerned about losing fundamental freedoms, or even your life—it’s because your stakes aren’t the same.

Third, your numbers on voter turnout are incorrect. Ballots are still being counted and full turnout numbers won’t be in for several weeks or even months, but as FiveThirtyEight notes (emphasis mine):

Approximately 58.1 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in last week’s presidential election, according to the latest estimates from Michael McDonald, associate professor at the University of Florida, who gathers data at the U.S. Elections Project. That’s down only slightly from 2012, when turnout was 58.6 percent, and well above 2000’s rate of 54.2 percent. Turnout may end up being higher than in any presidential election year between 1972 and 2000. (It’s already higher than in any midterm election since 1896, according to McDonald’s numbers, including the paltry 35.9 percent of voters who turned out two years ago.)

Moreover, if you look at their live spreadsheet (which is being updated by the day), you’ll see the following tallies for Clinton and Trump:

• Clinton: 63,759,985 (47.99%)
• Trump: 62,005,118 (46.67%)
• Others: 7,087,495 (5.33%)
• Total: 132,852,598

From Wikipedia, the 2012 election results were:

• Obama: 65,915,795 (51.06%)
• Romney: 60,933,504 (47.20%)
• Others: 2,236,111 (1.73%)
• Total: 129,085,410

And in 2008:

• Obama: 69,498,516 (52.93%)
• McCain: 59,948,32 (45.65%)
• Other: 1,866,981 (1.42%)
• Total: 131,313,820

I’m not sure where you’re getting this whole “eight million Democrats died” thing. As of 11/15/2016 voter turnout was only .5% lower this election than in 2012 (58.1% vs. 58.6%).

Democrats got fewer votes because, as you can see, significantly more voters opted to vote for the “other” category —in 2016, fully 3.6% more people voted for “other” than in 2012, and 3.9% more than in 2008. Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and Harambe managed to tug on heartstrings, I guess. Moreover, we don’t know exactly how the 12 million Bernie Sanders supporters voted, but beyond Clinton, some voted Green and some wrote-in Sanders (which account for “other”), while some switched to Trump. No one died — the Democratic party was divided.

Fourth, I’m not sure why this ageism and generational finger-pointing is coming in. Age wasn’t a factor anywhere in my original post or my response, but if you really want to go there, then we can go there. I’m glad I have the “millennials to snake people” browser plugin, because it only barely makes this tolerable.

In 2016, so-called “millennials” turned out in the same numbers as 2012: 50%. In battleground states, they turned out at an even higher number: 55%.

However, blaming non-voting on the millennial demographic is biased and inaccurate. As Pew Research notes from 2010:

Nearly three-quarters of nonvoters (72%) are younger than age 50, compared with only 42% of likely voters.

In the 2010s, it wasn’t the millennials — who, by the way, would have been anywhere from 18–33 years old if you go with the very broadest definition of “millennial” from Neilson Media Research—who weren’t voting. It was the younger-than-50s. What do we call those? Millennial-Gen-X-ers?

But, wait! Other factors that intersect with non-voting include lower education, low incomes, and unemployment:

• 55% of nonvoters younger than age 40 have only a high school education
• 43% of nonvoters have family incomes under $30,000
• 31% of nonvoters describe their personal financial situation as poor
• 51% of nonvoters say that they or someone in their household was out of work and looking for a job at some point in the past 12 months

Should we also blame poor education? Low incomes? Unemployment? Which group should we single out and blame for not voting? All of them? What about poorly educated, low-income, unemployed young people? Maybe we should blame them?

Except non-voting is a complex beast. In fact, the data even sometimes varies between elections. In 2010, non-voting was predominantly in demographics that are poorer, under 50, and lesser-educated. But as the New York Times notes in 2012:

While young people, poor people and Hispanics are often singled out for low voting rates, there are millions of nonvoters in every demographic group. In fact, the majority of people who didn’t vote in the 2012 presidential election were white, middle-income and middle-aged.

Glad we cleared that one up!

Look: clearly you’re frustrated about non-voters, and non-voting is undoubtedly a serious issue. But blaming it all on a certain age demographic when data indicates otherwise and then calling me biased (for writing an opinion piece, no less!) is silly. And telling protesters that they don’t have a right to demonstrate because you assume they didn’t vote is a bizarre hill to die on.

I voted and didn’t get the outcome I wanted, so now it’s time to mobilize and protect our freedoms, not yell about “getting the government we deserved”, whose fault it is the Cheeto-colored demagogue got elected, or which candidate was reaaaaaallllly more corrupt. The media is seriously entertaining questions about whether Jews are people, so I’ve officially got bigger fish to fry.