“The future ain’t what it used to be.”

-Yogi Berra

  • 64 Posts
  • 5.85K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 29th, 2023

help-circle







  • We should have just turned the convention into a mini-primary, like Obama wanted. Maybe this was the reason why he was so hesitant to endorse Kamala. He wanted her to earn it because thats how you get people to vote for you.

    Jesus christ someone couldn’t have just pushed Biden down some stairs in like, February? Not like a bunch, but maybe 3-4? Just enough for us to have had some kind of testing of the candidates?







  • 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.





  • 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.


  • 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?