• lemmyng@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    2 hours ago

    That’s a rational question. Unfortunately it won’t get the desired result, because the target audience is not going to behave rationally:

    • The media that they consume is following the fascist playbook. They’re telling the audience that if things are not better yet, then it’s because there are others still left to blame, and the worse things get the harder those others are going to be blamed for it.
    • Even if someone moves past that propaganda, it’s been ingrained into them that to accept being incorrect is to admit failure. They’ve been primed to dig in and double down, lest their peers see them as a failure, or even worse as others.
  • 0x01@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 hours ago

    You know what, unfortunately for some in the target demographic the answer is yes. Those who capitulated and got jobs as ice agents got a huge sign on bonus and livable salary. Bribed to terrorize

  • the_q@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    She licked that donut that one time and I haven’t been able to let that go.

  • Signtist@bookwyr.me
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Of course the answer is yes. They want the suffering. Everything else was just an excuse. They voted for the suffering of others, got the suffering of others, and are happy. Even if the price of groceries, gas, and everything else is higher, they don’t mind because they got what they really wanted.

    • Victor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      What an impactful post though. Or at least it is for the people that aren’t its target audience. 😬

  • WhiteOakBayou@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 hour ago

    I keep asking the conservatives in my life this. Thanos snap, all migrants are gone, how has your life improved? The only straight answer I’ve gotten was a creative use of math to show how much the US would save on benefits. Their proof relied on an omission from their source about who is going to lose benefits. The cost of enforcement, detention and removal was outside the bounds of the original question.