/c/politics basic rules: - eviltoast

I thought I could take this down after the election, apparently not.

Please review the sidebar.

  1. No self posts.
  2. No meme/image/shitposting.
  3. No video links.
  4. No social media.
  5. Doxing people, even Nazis, gets you banned.

Those posts are better directed to Political Discussion or Political Memes.

!politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world

!politicalmemes@lemmy.world

Articles from trusted sources are absolutely welcome.

Items 1-4 can be used in comments, they just can’t be submitted as posts.

The usual lemmy.world rules apply too:

No calls for violence. Full stop.

We’re seeing an uptick in trolling already, trolls will be banhammered without warning.

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    22·
    14 days ago

    You just don’t get who or why people are advocating for those positions.

    Leftists asking for better from the candidate are doing so because they perceive issues like genocide, money in politics as deeply unpopular, and issues like M4A and paid family leave as popular. Your blaming the wrong group.

    It’s Harris apologists saying you just have to plug your nose this election who lost the game for all of us, because that gave Harris cover for staying out on some deeply unpopular issues.

    You (and others, not trying to single you out) think you know what you are doing with your ‘trolley problem’ perception/ analysis of this issue, but you are wrong to the point of self deception. You might consider why that is.

    • fcSolar@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      14 days ago

      Your blaming the wrong group.

      Multiple groups can be at fault. (As a mostly unrelated aside, if I were to blame a single entity, it would be Rutherford B. Hayes). And TBH, Leftists who failed to hold their nose are probably the least to blame, they’re just the last ones in the line of responsibility. Ultimately Harris bears the most responsibility (at least recently) for her failure of a campaign.

      You might consider why that is.

      Care to enlighten me? I’ve never been the brightest tool in the shed, so from where I’m sitting it’s a pretty easy case of less genocide vs. more genocide.

      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
        22·
        14 days ago

        I think this comment that I offered @Jordan_Lund makes the point well:

        https://lemmy.world/comment/13236115

        and reposted here:

        Its like you are allergic to the plain understanding that how you present this case, is just fucking wrong. No matter how much you wish it was that there were only two choices in this race, thats just not true. You drank the kool-aid. We get it. You see no other options. Other people do. Other people in the world see things differently than you, and clearly, Rashida Tlaib is one of them.

        Voters don’t have to vote. You can vote green, or blue, or red or purple. Or you can write in some other name. You can’t force your opinion on the world when your opinion doesn’t match objective reality.

        This fantastic world you’ve locked yourself in, its not the real world. Its an opinion that you have (which is fine), but which is not the same as the objective reality, because people actually can (and should, my opinion) vote however they please.

        Both sides are NOT the same, one is CLEARLY better than the other for you and everyone else.0

        I don’t disagree, but you @jordanlund@lemmy.world , are going to have to take responsibility for the fact that this rhetorical approach you are using has done more damage to Harris’ chances than it has convinced anyone that they need to vote Democrat. Its a view point that has been cultivated, selected for across lemmy which is toxic, not based in reality, and counter productive to the actual goals you suppose to have. Everyone that thinks the way you do has been convinced. Now what are you going to do about the people who don’t think the way you do? How are you going to get the voters for whom a genocide is unacceptable? Its too late at this point, but what I’m showing you is how this this toxic culture divided the party and its ability

        Blue MAGA/ Blue no matter who; they were always going to vote Democrat. You don’t need to work on them. They’re just followers and setting your rhetoric up to convince them is a waste of time, because you’ve already got their votes. Its the people for whom certain issues are a bridge too far that need to be convinced. And when you offer an argument that “they have no choice but to do what you want them to”, do you think that is going to convince them. When you abuse them and gaslight them, how convincing do you think they’ll find that?

        I’m of the opinion that you can’t ask a Palestinian or Muslim voter to vote Democrat this year, since Democrats don’t even see them as people. They wouldn’t even allow a Muslim 3 minutes on stage to make the case to other Muslims why they should vote for Harris. What Tlaib is doing here is probably the right move politically if she wants to hold her seat. Her job is to represent her constituents, not the party, and if she thinks this is the right thing to do, I support her in that.

        My argument, is that Democrats have left a lane wide open, and from a purely strategic/ cynical view of things, it would be stupid for some-one/ anyone to not just hop in and take that lane. I think we see Talib, Omar, maybe Porter, any other progressives who’ve been ratfucked by the DNC/ DCCC take that lane as independents. Its a blue ocean/ wide open opportunity that rarely shows itself in politics.

        If the Democrats are going to keep heading to the right like Harris has, I expect more progressive Independents to start appearing, striking back to the approach that Bernie Sanders used to great effect in the senate over his tenure.

        If you can’t put out the effort to understand why people think the things that they do, if you can’t empathize with people you don’t agree with, you’ll never understand them sufficiently to change their minds.

        • fcSolar@lemmy.worldEnglish
          31·
          14 days ago

          Hooh boy that’'s a lotta text, but I think I more or less get what you’re getting at, so I’m going to have to try real hard not to breach the civility rules here.

          I get that the Gaza genocide is terrible, I get the feeling of powerlessness over it, I really do, I’m feeling it right now, I also get wanting to do something about it, but in regards to this particular election, there was nothing that could be done, especially not by the time Biden dropped. The options in this election were simple: More genocide, or less genocide. There wasn’t a no genocide option, unfortunately. If there was, I have full confidence that option would’ve won. But there wasn’t. Harris was never going to change her stance. So: More genocide or less. If one didn’t vote? More genocide. If one voted third party? More genocide. If, god forbid, one voted for trump? Believe it or not, more genocide. The only way to get less genocide was to vote for Harris. After that is a long and hard road: Running progressive local and eventually state candidates, organizing community awareness events, protests, etc. all with the express purpose of redirecting democrats to the left.

          • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
            13·
            14 days ago

            You should go back and read the whole thread that this comment originated from. The other responses in that thread break down precisely why your rhetorical approach

            Harris was never going to change her stance.

            Because she felt no pressure to do so. She had apologists here, there, everywhere saying precisely what you are saying right now. That gave her the cover she needed to feel like she didn’t have to move on this issue. And it didn’t work.

            You really should read the entire thread I linked, because you are doing precisely what @jordanlund@lemmy.world did in that thread. And if you are not curious as to why this rhetorical approach failed (when people like me were telling you, @Jordan, everyone, that this approach would fail), then you are part of the very problem you suppose to solve.

            Every one who can be convinced by the “both-sidesing” of the issue you choose to do has been convinced. Now what are you going to do to convince those for whom genocide was a bridge too far? If you can’t understand people for whom the rhetorical approach that worked on you, didn’t work on them, and continue to refuse to even try and understand them, how do you expect to change their minds?

            • fcSolar@lemmy.worldEnglish
              21·
              13 days ago

              Now what are you going to do to convince those for whom genocide was a bridge too far?

              […]how do you expect to change their minds?

              I’m not. Because, generally speaking, people don’t really change their minds. They just look to confirm their own biases. Its the big reason republicans have such strong support despite being the worst party by every metric except hate. It’s also the reason Harris was never going to back down on her support for Israel. Well that and AIPAC, with them around even I wouldn’t wholly denounce Israel no matter how much I’d like to. Besides if genocide is “a bridge too far,” then why, pray tell, do they support more genocide?

              • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                12·
                13 days ago

                I’m not. Because, generally speaking, people don’t really change their minds. They just look to confirm their own biases.

                Well then I would argue, that by offering the rhetoric you did, you were never really interested in winning this election through the use of this rhetorical technique. This kind of bad-faith approach (whether its acknowledged or not), is what lost the Democrats this election. If you aren’t actually trying to change anyone’s mind with that point, then why are you making it? Who do you expect it to work on? It seems to me that its mostly a virtue signal; an effort to wash your hands of responsibility.

                Democrats fundamental thesis this election cycle was “Trump bad and or worse”. It’s now in the books that this approach to rhetoric lost them the election. You can’t continue to pretend it was in good faith.

                • fcSolar@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  2·
                  13 days ago

                  If you aren’t actually trying to change anyone’s mind with that point, then why are you making it?

                  Honestly I often wonder that my self. Well, I know the answer in this particular instance of me, in this thread. I saw something I had an opinion on, so I shared it. The ensuing “argument” is basically more of the same, with the added bonus of being a sort of emotional pressure release valve.

                  But in general, why do we (as human beings) bother with the verbal arguments and rhetorical sparring? People changing their minds on something is rare, so logically speaking it’s a waste of time. Some sort of emotional fulfillment? Vain hope? Because the alternative is violence and we’re supposed to be better than that? I certainly don’t know.

                  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                    12·
                    13 days ago

                    I’m using you as an example, so don’t take this overly personal, but I think you owe yourself, and if or any one else reading this, made the argument that you are relying on here, they owe this community some serious introspection.

                    I’ve been trying to communicate to this for the community for literally months, that the rhetorical approach that they are insisting on is/ was/ and has now been documented, to have done serious damage to the best shot we had at stopping Trump. Providing cover and excuses for bad Democratic candidates and policies does material damage to the chances of Democrats to win at the polls because it selects for less popular, more vulnerable, weaker Democrats. If you are not working to hold Democrats accountable and trying to defend them from criticism, this election loss is on you.