I have a related degree, but it’s no secret that you target those who are never going to vote for you with propaganda to make them cynical and abstain from voting. It’s what Cambridge Analytica was infamous for (Brexit, first Trump campaign, etc.), but there are others.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Cynicism was a significant factor in the downfall of the Weimar Republic. That cynicism was in large part fostered and exacerbated by Nazi propaganda.
Everyone is susceptible to propaganda, but especially those who think they aren’t. Propaganda is especially effective when it contains a kernel of truth.
Its funny that the propaganda you refer to is always ‘well they werent going to do anything for you anyways’ and have it be true. last time i heard a mainstream democrat run on a decent platform was obama. since then its been nothing but ‘well we cant do that! its not capitalist!’
My dad is worse than your dad! I Never said it was a tough choice. just that my choice is not to vote for either shit pile. you’re free to continue voting for whatever idiot you want to. I’ll occassional toss my vote in when it offers material change on the ground. if it doesnt, then i wont.
Here is a list of things that will get that check box:
candidate needs to full throatedly support single payer.
candidate needs to shut their whore mouths about ‘supporting {minority group} is costing us the elections!’
full throated prolabour positions: minimum paid / sick leave / paternity leave / living wage automatic inflation adjustments / forcing companies to bring labor position back or UBI.
full throated support for monopoly busting.
I’ll take any one of those bullet points and I’ll be arsed to roll out of bed for your candidate. There are other things as well but I dont think an exhaustive list is necessary.
I’m curious why you frame your vote as a reward to a candidate for checking your boxes, and not a tool to exert some control over your material conditions. It just seems like such a strange way to treat your vote.
With holding your vote is a far more effective way to exert control. its that simple. corpo dems and repubs know very well what policies workers want and how to implement them they choose not to.
How though? How does withholding your vote accomplish that? You keep saying that it does, but you haven’t described the mechanism by which that happens.
American politics is an emotive subject if you’re American, which I assume you are.
Apply your argument to the brexit referendum, where many of the same arguments you’re making were made by pro-brexit campaigners, and where mainstream politicians on both sides of the aisle have also failed many British people, especially the working classes.
While the latter was and still is absolutely true, it was also used by Cambridge Analytica, to decrease voter turn-out in targetted demographic groups.
Would you have voted in that referendum?
The end result was arguably emboldened racists, a divided Europe, lack lustre economic and job growth, poor treatment of migrants, a country closer to far-right rule than it has been in a long time, and a select elite getting richer. But then life would have gotten worse for many people even if the UK had voted to stay in the EU, and the leave result did give the establishment a much necessary bloody nose, so you could argue there wasn’t much point voting either way.
This is a genuine question. I don’t have easy answers.
yes, and I would have voted against brexit. just like i actively engage in activities that prevent isreali from murdering palestinians.
Classifying shit as propaganda isnt useful. its basically just the dissemination of information at its core good or bad.
The reason activities like cambridge analytica work is because the information is often true and verifiable. We have a long history of moderate dems never delivering on workers interest by always having just enough votes not to.
The only way to get it to not work is for the democrats to start fucking delivering to the working class. but that wont happen until your remove the corporate mouth pieces.
Kamala never would have lost if she came out hard for workers and gaza. instead she gave us… drumroll legalized weed. something 80% of the population already has.
I dont vote for genocide however you wish to classify the scope as more or less.
Here’s the thing though, you could argue that voting in favour of brexit, would have emboldened the centrists and the establishment in the UK, to keep making the lives of the working class worse. Brexit gave them a much necessary bloody nose.
In French they say “Choisir entre la peste et le choléra”. Choosing between plague or cholera. Let’s take the French example:
The French will likely soon get to choose between Le Pen and Macron’s successor. The latter is a likely corrupt centrist dickhead from a party which has lead the country to the brink and emboldened fascists. The former is Le Pen, a Russian aligned fascist.
The propaganda will tell people Macron’s successor is a neo-liberal thief and part of why France is in deep trouble. Which is absolutely true. But the alternative is a literal fascist. You can vote for Macron’s successor, but then the establishment thinks it’s business as usual. You can not bother voting at all, but then it’s likely Le Pen wins…
Electoral systems which favour multi-party governments are often better. But then look at Germany, where ever more parties are forced into a coalition against the far right AfD, because people vote for AfD(or don’t vote against them) in increasing numbers. The propaganda tells them that mainstream parties are incompetent, corrupt, and have ended up costing thousands their jobs. Which is absolutely true.
If Germans don’t vote or vote for smaller parties, they potentially let the fascists in.
If they do vote for a bigger party, who are often quite pro-Israel for historical reasons, it’s likely these parties will think they can get away with business as usual, which emboldens the fascists and further disenfranchises voters for next time around…
Personally, I would always vote for the lesser evil, but I get where you’re coming from.
Here’s the thing though, you could argue that voting in favour of brexit, would have emboldened the centrists and the establishment in the UK, to keep making the lives of the working class worse. Brexit gave them a much necessary bloody nose.
I dont worry about how other people will interpret my actions. its not a useful benchmark for decision making.
The propaganda will tell people Macron’s successor is a neo-liberal thief and part of why France is in deep trouble…
Is macron’s successor literally enabling a genocide like harris did? These are not either or questions. you need to look at what candidates are doing. I tossed my vote for biden in 2020 even though i didnt like him. He decided to start a genocide. he lost my support. harris continued to support the genocide. she also lost my support. Now you have the dems in absolute turmoil and progressives are sweeping up this primary. It’ll unfortunately take a few more cycles for this to complete.
You worry too much about what the candidate will do vs what they are doing and you’re trying to prevent candidate A from acting by supporting candidate B even though you also dont like candidate B.
As a result you explicitly are condoning candidate B’s actions. By not taking away your vote/support you are directly responsible for their actions. You also enable them to claim ‘that only they, the center, can win’ because you are unwilling to withhold your support. You’re literally a hostage.
On top of that by supporting candidate B regardless of their actions because of your fear of candidate A you make it more difficult to remove candidate B and replace them with a better option.
Sound familiar? its the rachette effect. Stop supporting candidate B and suddenly you have room to replace them. Withholding your vote is one of the most effective tools for electoral change outside of general strikes.
Im not going to join you or condone your support of ‘lesser evil’ because it makes the tail of this situation longer and worse. And I’m going to call it out for what it is: An Ineffective reaction to fear. It in fact is a direct source of the situation we’re in now in the states because its been going on for so long that all the guard rails have fallen and all you have left are… the very people enabling the situation.
Now, I respect your individual choice, its just a bad one if you actually want change. One option you have is to split your ticket: vote against le pen but dont vote in any of macron’s party otherwise.
I’m going to leave you with a quote:
Rosa Luxemburg: ‘Those who dont move, do not notice their chains’
Is macron’s successor literally enabling a genocide like harris did
France/Macron has continuously sold Israel weapons, yes. But they’re also being more critical of Israel, want to ban goods from settlements, etc.
Le Pen is a fascist and friend to Israel, so much so that a Likud minister has said she would be an excellent president, they’ve been in secret talks with Israel, and she has been critical of Macron for not supporting Israel enough, etc. The Israelis are almost certainly pushing propaganda to get people to not bother turning out to vote against Le Pen.
By not taking away your vote/support you are directly responsible for their actions.
You can vote for Macron’s guy, who’ll likely continue selling weapons to Israel, and that arguably makes you complicit in genocide. Correct.
Or you can not vote, and risk a Le Pen victory, and even closer ties to Israel. You’re doing what the Israelis want you to (not) do. You not voting, is an implied ok, you’re not going to do anything to stop them.
Rosa Luxemburg: ‘Those who dont move, do not notice their chains’
Do you think Rosa Luxemburg would have abstained from voting against the Nazis, because the other German political parties were corrupt and inept?
I’m not saying you’re necessarily wrong to not vote.
I’m saying it’s not a morally pure choice. Your hands aren’t clean either way.
To quote Sapkowski: “Evil is Evil. Lesser, greater, middling… Makes no difference. The degree is arbitrary. The definition’s blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another… I’d rather not choose at all.”
Who said I’m pouting/not playing. just because i dont for your candidate doesnt mean Im not taking actions. Sorry I’m currently busy running a network protecting my local community from the jackboots. LMK when you have a candidate who isnt running on ‘planning to murder friends and family in the middle east’ and ‘going to continue promoting corporate interests at the expense of working americans’ and I’ll vote for them.
You’re literally doing the same thing the person who I called out is doing. inferring incorrect motives from a noisy signal.
I’m just curious if you’re getting involved in grassroots activism, promoting candidates you agree with, canvassing the neighborhood to try to drum up support, etc. Because these are the sorts of things that need to happen in order to produce a candidate you agree with. It’s completely disienguous to put the entire onus of finding a candidate you agree with on other people.
I want you to vote. I care less about who you vote for than I do you voting at all. Exercising your civic right to choose your representation is a big deal, and I encourage you to stop getting mad at other people for not doing your own legwork, and instead get out there and promote a candidate you agree with. Hell, maybe you should run yourself. I don’t know, but I do know that sitting around getting mad because you don’t like the major candidates without doing anything about it gets us all nowhere.
Oh so now someone has to promote candidates they agree with in order to be involved in grassroots organizing
this is an anarchist space
Why is it so hard for people to get that the problem is the system, that by promoting any candidate for any role is promoting the system itself? There will never be a candidate I agree with because the people who are empowered by the American constitution to dissolve the union aren’t elected officials.
“I tried nothing and it didn’t work” isn’t a strategy that works for me.
I’m not going to sit on my butt and complain into the void. I will do everything I can to get to where I want the world to where I hope it can go.
Organizing is not in conflict with anarchism.
Pretending the system doesn’t exist or that not participating in any way will change it is a fool’s errand.
Feel free to find another way to participate, but trying to push others to not do what they can, to me, is (at best) an effort to continue the downward trend.
This is absurd. Electoral organizing isn’t the only kind of organizing. Organizing outside of electoral campaigns is not doing nothing. Telling people the only way to organize or do anything to influence politics is through election campaigns is absolutely in conflict with anarchism.
I’m just curious if you’re getting involved in grassroots activism, promoting candidates you agree with, canvassing the neighborhood to try to drum up support, etc. …
It’s completely disienguous to put the entire onus of finding a candidate you agree with on other people.
Talk about being disingenuous. not to mention holier than thou.
Sorry I’m currently busy running a network protecting my local community from the jackboots.
What part of this statement makes you think I havent/dont do all the above. I’m mad that you chuckle fucks keep riding the vote harder while continuing to give your support to candidates neither of us, allegedly, want instead of letting those candidates just lose because they literally suck.
I’m mad that you chuckle fucks keep riding the vote harder while continuing to give your support to candidates neither of us, allegedly, want instead of letting those candidates just lose because they literally suck.
What would that accomplish? Sincerely, no one has been able to explain to me how the slightly-less-bad candidate losing provides any benefit whatsoever.
It’s not like the other mainstream candidate doesn’t also suck, and moreso in fact.
It’s not like if enough people sit out the election it triggers some secret clause written into the Constitution in invisible magic ink. One of the candidates that suck still wins.
I’m genuinely curious, what is supposed to happen if we let them lose? Who does that help besides the slightly shittier candidate?
I’ve read through like this entire comment section, and most of your comments specifically, and I haven’t seen it. Care to link or quote the comment where you answer this question? I can’t find it
I’m done hand feeding people, you want my help for comprehension demonstrate some critical thinking on your end. feel free to respond to this with a analysis of what happens in various situations when voting for candidates and add where you’re confused and I’ll address your questions. otherwise shrug its a you problem and I’m done playing games with people who just mouth breath talking points and their personal fears at me.
Welcome back to school I guess, remember show your work.
What? You can’t be done doing something you never started doing. You keep saying that your strategy will work, but haven’t said how, or given an example of it working, or really provide any kind of evidence or reasoning except repeatedly insisting.
It really seems like you’re the confused one here, mouthing talking points and your personal fears. I already told you my question and you’re just deflecting and trying to shift the burden onto me, which makes zero sense since you’re making a frankly wild and counter-intuitive claim. Based on the ratios, it seems like most people are in the same boat as me in having no idea how what you’re proposing is actually supposed to work.
I’m not really interested in a schoolteacher role-play with someone so insistent that they’re right and everyone else is wrong with zero evidence or justification, especially when you go on to denigrate and belittle people for asking you to show your work.
Yeah… Reading your other comments, I think you actually have a decent take on this, but I think the way you’re communicating it isn’t working for the audience…
What’s the point of communicating if you know that you’re being misunderstood?
It’s not about reading comprehension, it’s about frame coherence. Other people don’t have your particular history of experiences, so some things that make obvious sense to you need more context for other people (the same is true in reverse, obviously).
What’s the point of communicating if you know that you’re being misunderstood?
This is a public forum, I’m not necessarily responding for them.
It’s not about reading comprehension, it’s about frame coherence.
And when they’re unwilling to stop and comprehend that’s a them problem. Just like it was my problem when I did the same thing to @Souvenir@lemmy.dbzer0.com in that conversation.
But yes, frame coherence is a problem. its why these people annoy me so much they dont contextualize at all. voting patterns need to vary based on region. you can just be blasting ‘you must vote for dems!’ that’s entirely self defeating over the long term given their platform of being anti-worker, and its exactly what got us into this mess.
Hell voting patterns need to vary based on the position and the current makeup of the body.
So what’s your solution? Pouting in the corner and saying “I’m not playing”?
Removed by mod
Plenty have been targetted with propaganda.
I have a related degree, but it’s no secret that you target those who are never going to vote for you with propaganda to make them cynical and abstain from voting. It’s what Cambridge Analytica was infamous for (Brexit, first Trump campaign, etc.), but there are others.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Cynicism was a significant factor in the downfall of the Weimar Republic. That cynicism was in large part fostered and exacerbated by Nazi propaganda.
Everyone is susceptible to propaganda, but especially those who think they aren’t. Propaganda is especially effective when it contains a kernel of truth.
Its funny that the propaganda you refer to is always ‘well they werent going to do anything for you anyways’ and have it be true. last time i heard a mainstream democrat run on a decent platform was obama. since then its been nothing but ‘well we cant do that! its not capitalist!’
Yes that is just as bad as Trump and Co actively dismantling institutions and lining their pockets at our expense. What a tough choice.
My dad is worse than your dad! I Never said it was a tough choice. just that my choice is not to vote for either shit pile. you’re free to continue voting for whatever idiot you want to. I’ll occassional toss my vote in when it offers material change on the ground. if it doesnt, then i wont.
Here is a list of things that will get that check box:
I’ll take any one of those bullet points and I’ll be arsed to roll out of bed for your candidate. There are other things as well but I dont think an exhaustive list is necessary.
I’m curious why you frame your vote as a reward to a candidate for checking your boxes, and not a tool to exert some control over your material conditions. It just seems like such a strange way to treat your vote.
With holding your vote is a far more effective way to exert control. its that simple. corpo dems and repubs know very well what policies workers want and how to implement them they choose not to.
How though? How does withholding your vote accomplish that? You keep saying that it does, but you haven’t described the mechanism by which that happens.
That is certainly a lovely list to vote for.
American politics is an emotive subject if you’re American, which I assume you are.
Apply your argument to the brexit referendum, where many of the same arguments you’re making were made by pro-brexit campaigners, and where mainstream politicians on both sides of the aisle have also failed many British people, especially the working classes.
While the latter was and still is absolutely true, it was also used by Cambridge Analytica, to decrease voter turn-out in targetted demographic groups.
Would you have voted in that referendum?
The end result was arguably emboldened racists, a divided Europe, lack lustre economic and job growth, poor treatment of migrants, a country closer to far-right rule than it has been in a long time, and a select elite getting richer. But then life would have gotten worse for many people even if the UK had voted to stay in the EU, and the leave result did give the establishment a much necessary bloody nose, so you could argue there wasn’t much point voting either way.
This is a genuine question. I don’t have easy answers.
I apologize I didnt mean you ignore you.
yes, and I would have voted against brexit. just like i actively engage in activities that prevent isreali from murdering palestinians.
Classifying shit as propaganda isnt useful. its basically just the dissemination of information at its core good or bad.
The reason activities like cambridge analytica work is because the information is often true and verifiable. We have a long history of moderate dems never delivering on workers interest by always having just enough votes not to.
The only way to get it to not work is for the democrats to start fucking delivering to the working class. but that wont happen until your remove the corporate mouth pieces.
Kamala never would have lost if she came out hard for workers and gaza. instead she gave us… drumroll legalized weed. something 80% of the population already has.
I dont vote for genocide however you wish to classify the scope as more or less.
Here’s the thing though, you could argue that voting in favour of brexit, would have emboldened the centrists and the establishment in the UK, to keep making the lives of the working class worse. Brexit gave them a much necessary bloody nose.
In French they say “Choisir entre la peste et le choléra”. Choosing between plague or cholera. Let’s take the French example:
The French will likely soon get to choose between Le Pen and Macron’s successor. The latter is a likely corrupt centrist dickhead from a party which has lead the country to the brink and emboldened fascists. The former is Le Pen, a Russian aligned fascist.
The propaganda will tell people Macron’s successor is a neo-liberal thief and part of why France is in deep trouble. Which is absolutely true. But the alternative is a literal fascist. You can vote for Macron’s successor, but then the establishment thinks it’s business as usual. You can not bother voting at all, but then it’s likely Le Pen wins…
Electoral systems which favour multi-party governments are often better. But then look at Germany, where ever more parties are forced into a coalition against the far right AfD, because people vote for AfD(or don’t vote against them) in increasing numbers. The propaganda tells them that mainstream parties are incompetent, corrupt, and have ended up costing thousands their jobs. Which is absolutely true.
If Germans don’t vote or vote for smaller parties, they potentially let the fascists in.
If they do vote for a bigger party, who are often quite pro-Israel for historical reasons, it’s likely these parties will think they can get away with business as usual, which emboldens the fascists and further disenfranchises voters for next time around…
Personally, I would always vote for the lesser evil, but I get where you’re coming from.
TLDR: I’m going to watch a shitty vampire show.
I dont worry about how other people will interpret my actions. its not a useful benchmark for decision making.
Is macron’s successor literally enabling a genocide like harris did? These are not either or questions. you need to look at what candidates are doing. I tossed my vote for biden in 2020 even though i didnt like him. He decided to start a genocide. he lost my support. harris continued to support the genocide. she also lost my support. Now you have the dems in absolute turmoil and progressives are sweeping up this primary. It’ll unfortunately take a few more cycles for this to complete.
You worry too much about what the candidate will do vs what they are doing and you’re trying to prevent candidate A from acting by supporting candidate B even though you also dont like candidate B.
As a result you explicitly are condoning candidate B’s actions. By not taking away your vote/support you are directly responsible for their actions. You also enable them to claim ‘that only they, the center, can win’ because you are unwilling to withhold your support. You’re literally a hostage.
On top of that by supporting candidate B regardless of their actions because of your fear of candidate A you make it more difficult to remove candidate B and replace them with a better option.
Sound familiar? its the rachette effect. Stop supporting candidate B and suddenly you have room to replace them. Withholding your vote is one of the most effective tools for electoral change outside of general strikes.
Im not going to join you or condone your support of ‘lesser evil’ because it makes the tail of this situation longer and worse. And I’m going to call it out for what it is: An Ineffective reaction to fear. It in fact is a direct source of the situation we’re in now in the states because its been going on for so long that all the guard rails have fallen and all you have left are… the very people enabling the situation.
Now, I respect your individual choice, its just a bad one if you actually want change. One option you have is to split your ticket: vote against le pen but dont vote in any of macron’s party otherwise.
I’m going to leave you with a quote:
Rosa Luxemburg: ‘Those who dont move, do not notice their chains’
Now please move. ;)
France/Macron has continuously sold Israel weapons, yes. But they’re also being more critical of Israel, want to ban goods from settlements, etc.
Le Pen is a fascist and friend to Israel, so much so that a Likud minister has said she would be an excellent president, they’ve been in secret talks with Israel, and she has been critical of Macron for not supporting Israel enough, etc. The Israelis are almost certainly pushing propaganda to get people to not bother turning out to vote against Le Pen.
You can vote for Macron’s guy, who’ll likely continue selling weapons to Israel, and that arguably makes you complicit in genocide. Correct.
Or you can not vote, and risk a Le Pen victory, and even closer ties to Israel. You’re doing what the Israelis want you to (not) do. You not voting, is an implied ok, you’re not going to do anything to stop them.
Do you think Rosa Luxemburg would have abstained from voting against the Nazis, because the other German political parties were corrupt and inept?
I’m not saying you’re necessarily wrong to not vote.
I’m saying it’s not a morally pure choice. Your hands aren’t clean either way.
To quote Sapkowski: “Evil is Evil. Lesser, greater, middling… Makes no difference. The degree is arbitrary. The definition’s blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another… I’d rather not choose at all.”
But I don’t think we get to not choose.
Removed by mod
Who said I’m pouting/not playing. just because i dont for your candidate doesnt mean Im not taking actions. Sorry I’m currently busy running a network protecting my local community from the jackboots. LMK when you have a candidate who isnt running on ‘planning to murder friends and family in the middle east’ and ‘going to continue promoting corporate interests at the expense of working americans’ and I’ll vote for them.
You’re literally doing the same thing the person who I called out is doing. inferring incorrect motives from a noisy signal.
I’m just curious if you’re getting involved in grassroots activism, promoting candidates you agree with, canvassing the neighborhood to try to drum up support, etc. Because these are the sorts of things that need to happen in order to produce a candidate you agree with. It’s completely disienguous to put the entire onus of finding a candidate you agree with on other people.
I want you to vote. I care less about who you vote for than I do you voting at all. Exercising your civic right to choose your representation is a big deal, and I encourage you to stop getting mad at other people for not doing your own legwork, and instead get out there and promote a candidate you agree with. Hell, maybe you should run yourself. I don’t know, but I do know that sitting around getting mad because you don’t like the major candidates without doing anything about it gets us all nowhere.
Oh so now someone has to promote candidates they agree with in order to be involved in grassroots organizing
this is an anarchist space
Why is it so hard for people to get that the problem is the system, that by promoting any candidate for any role is promoting the system itself? There will never be a candidate I agree with because the people who are empowered by the American constitution to dissolve the union aren’t elected officials.
“I tried nothing and it didn’t work” isn’t a strategy that works for me.
I’m not going to sit on my butt and complain into the void. I will do everything I can to get to where I want the world to where I hope it can go.
Organizing is not in conflict with anarchism.
Pretending the system doesn’t exist or that not participating in any way will change it is a fool’s errand.
Feel free to find another way to participate, but trying to push others to not do what they can, to me, is (at best) an effort to continue the downward trend.
This is absurd. Electoral organizing isn’t the only kind of organizing. Organizing outside of electoral campaigns is not doing nothing. Telling people the only way to organize or do anything to influence politics is through election campaigns is absolutely in conflict with anarchism.
Who said it was?
You’re coming to absolutely ridiculous conclusions based on fabrications of what I said.
Feel free to point to where I said any of that.
I’ll wait.
This is literally what you’re doing, right now.
Talk about being disingenuous. not to mention holier than thou.
What part of this statement makes you think I havent/dont do all the above. I’m mad that you chuckle fucks keep riding the vote harder while continuing to give your support to candidates neither of us, allegedly, want instead of letting those candidates just lose because they literally suck.
What would that accomplish? Sincerely, no one has been able to explain to me how the slightly-less-bad candidate losing provides any benefit whatsoever.
It’s not like the other mainstream candidate doesn’t also suck, and moreso in fact.
It’s not like if enough people sit out the election it triggers some secret clause written into the Constitution in invisible magic ink. One of the candidates that suck still wins.
I’m genuinely curious, what is supposed to happen if we let them lose? Who does that help besides the slightly shittier candidate?
sounds like a you problem. I’ve addressed this literal question repeatedly.
I’ve read through like this entire comment section, and most of your comments specifically, and I haven’t seen it. Care to link or quote the comment where you answer this question? I can’t find it
suddenly when asked to show your work you stop responding huh? thought so.
I’m done hand feeding people, you want my help for comprehension demonstrate some critical thinking on your end. feel free to respond to this with a analysis of what happens in various situations when voting for candidates and add where you’re confused and I’ll address your questions. otherwise shrug its a you problem and I’m done playing games with people who just mouth breath talking points and their personal fears at me.
Welcome back to school I guess, remember show your work.
What? You can’t be done doing something you never started doing. You keep saying that your strategy will work, but haven’t said how, or given an example of it working, or really provide any kind of evidence or reasoning except repeatedly insisting.
It really seems like you’re the confused one here, mouthing talking points and your personal fears. I already told you my question and you’re just deflecting and trying to shift the burden onto me, which makes zero sense since you’re making a frankly wild and counter-intuitive claim. Based on the ratios, it seems like most people are in the same boat as me in having no idea how what you’re proposing is actually supposed to work.
I’m not really interested in a schoolteacher role-play with someone so insistent that they’re right and everyone else is wrong with zero evidence or justification, especially when you go on to denigrate and belittle people for asking you to show your work.
I mean, the DSA is doing a half way decent job of that in at least a few electorates…
Indeed they are. guess what candidates I’ve done work for…
Yeah… Reading your other comments, I think you actually have a decent take on this, but I think the way you’re communicating it isn’t working for the audience…
Reading comprehension on their end isnt my problem to solve. They are either incapable or unwilling to comprehend.
What’s the point of communicating if you know that you’re being misunderstood?
It’s not about reading comprehension, it’s about frame coherence. Other people don’t have your particular history of experiences, so some things that make obvious sense to you need more context for other people (the same is true in reverse, obviously).
This is a public forum, I’m not necessarily responding for them.
And when they’re unwilling to stop and comprehend that’s a them problem. Just like it was my problem when I did the same thing to @Souvenir@lemmy.dbzer0.com in that conversation.
But yes, frame coherence is a problem. its why these people annoy me so much they dont contextualize at all. voting patterns need to vary based on region. you can just be blasting ‘you must vote for dems!’ that’s entirely self defeating over the long term given their platform of being anti-worker, and its exactly what got us into this mess.
Hell voting patterns need to vary based on the position and the current makeup of the body.
Fair points! Definitely agree on the last one.