this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
132 points (88.8% liked)
politics
19098 readers
3643 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS.
It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments.
Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Register To Vote
• Citizenship Resource Center
• Congressional Awards Program
• Federal Government Agencies
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• The White House
• U.S. House of Representatives
• U.S. Senate
Partnered Communities:
• News
• World News
• Business News
• Political Discussion
• Ask Politics
• Military News
• Global Politics
• Moderate Politics
• Progressive Politics
• UK Politics
• Canadian Politics
• Australian Politics
• New Zealand Politics
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
As I mentioned upchain, multiple groups can be at fault, and chronologically the buck ended with the voters. The voters failed to hold their noses and work with the lesser of two evils, so now we're stuck with the greater one until that orange fatass croaks and we have to deal with the post-collapse chaos.
Again and again and again: you have an intentional block that you are keeping in place that is preventing you from understanding why this happened. I just want you to notice it at this point. Its already done enough damage to mortally wound the democratic project. Just please notice this blind spot of yours.