I get it, people are upset, but here’s the thing… We still have standards here.

Please review the sidebar.

  1. No self posts.
  2. No meme/image/shitposting.
  3. No video links.
  4. No social media.

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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 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.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 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.

            • fcSolar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              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.

              • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 days ago

                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.