Random Politics Thread

[Z Buck McFate]

If the media stopped the bothsideism, it would help but they won't. There is no $$ in it. I'm not referring to Fox/Newsmax/OANN or anything like it - they're not anything but propaganda. I mean the MSM that claims to be journalism. There is NO way to do this respectfully because the right are going to get their feelings hurt/instant outrage because anything they view as coming from the not right is an enemy. And the libs want civility over anything else. And anything that might be called "populism", no matter how much it could actually help the majority of people in this country is called communism/socialism by both the right and center.

I'm not talking about preaching a narrative at them, I'm talking about respectfully breaking apart their narrative by asking questions and being relentless about it, not letting a bunch of emotionally charged accusations or blathering distract from getting an answer. If a person initially answers with a bunch of propaganda talking points, then calmly ask how they know it's true. I mean, the strongest "evidence" these shitheads (read: the politicians and rightwing media) presented, when asked about election fraud, that "there are lots of allegations." That's not remotely a strong answer. Yes there were lots of allegations, because their orange god has been pulling them out of his ass since before 2016. And I mean - that can't be how it's phrased during the interview, it has to be pursued calmly and respectfully. Who is making these allegations? Give names, and explain how it's hard to understand how that outweighs the support to the argument that more fraud was found on the side of Trump supporters.

Sure, there are lots of people who won't hear it and will die on that mentally deranged hill. But I refuse to believe that most of the people who voted for Trump are truly so stupid/deranged that they wouldn't be able to hear a solid, calm argument about how their propaganda talking points are actually based on magical thinking. At some point, there IS an underlying truth to refer to, and I don't believe Democrats (including the Republican exodus of this past term) are the only ones capable of seeing it when it's presented without emotional charge.

And it has to be presented in such a way that if there ARE substantial answers on their end, they have to be listened to. That's the only way it works. If the possibility that *any* of the things they're pulling out of their collective asses is written off before the conversation even begins, then it's pointless. People can tell, when you're talking to them, if you're truly listening or if you're waiting to pounce on how 'wrong' they are. I mean, I've said it before and it'll keep being true - I would LOVE if a Trumpublican joined this forum who was capable of that kind of dialogue, but it hasn't happened. Quite a few have tried to talk circles around it, trying to MAKE it true about themselves - as if it's the perception of everyone interacting with them that's broken, not their ability to engage in dialogue - but when it comes right down to it, it's something that's self-evident. The ability to actually listen can't be faked, and it would be an essential character trait of what I'm talking about.

 

[The Cat]

This. Nothing top down works in any way.

well i mean, shit does tend to flow down hill, and that seems to work pretty consistently, but nothing good tends to work top down lol.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Ok, but I am not sure this will work.
In my book this set of arguments has to come from the people (or at least someone who came directly out of the people). While if it comes from media and celebrities it will just turn into another "meh" or cultural war thing. This has to be something that people spread to each other rather than some top down story. Especially since the target are none voters. Which often skip political TV shows because they basically gave up on politics and the whole useless spectacle around it.

Ignore the fact that I described it as "Jon Stewart type person". Whatever you mean by "the people" here is exactly what I'm talking about. I figured it was implied (in what I said) that anyone who has already established a politically divisive point of view won't be able to do it. Unless they have some amazing tact and can somehow reverse their image (possible, I guess, but unlikely).

ETA: And it's not about presenting a set of arguments so much as giving the other side the chance to present their argument, and then (respectfully) asking questions about everything presented until they either realize their talking points are empty *or* give an actually compelling argument. I obviously don't believe the latter will happen, but it has to be available for this to work.

 

[Stigmata]

McConnell says 'highly unlikely' he would let Biden fill a Supreme Court vacancy in 2024 if GOP wins back Senate

Joe Manchin: "I can't wait to seek bipartisan policy solutions with this guy!"

 

[ceecee]

I'm not talking about preaching a narrative at them, I'm talking about respectfully breaking apart their narrative by asking questions and being relentless about it, not letting a bunch of emotionally charged accusations or blathering distract from getting an answer. If a person initially answers with a bunch of propaganda talking points, then calmly ask how they know it's true.

Michael Moynihan is one of the best journalists I've seen interview Trump supporters. He is incredibly respectful and patient and lets them speak their piece.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Michael Moynihan is one of the best journalists I've seen interview Trump supporters. He is incredibly respectful and patient and lets them speak their piece.

Do you think that kind of thing Z Buck McFate was talking about actually works? I'm skeptical from all my years arguing about stuff on the internet. But then, it's certainly possible I wasn't doing it in a way that was conducive to their emotional needs.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

McConnell says 'highly unlikely' he would let Biden fill a Supreme Court vacancy in 2024 if GOP wins back Senate

Joe Manchin: "I can't wait to seek bipartisan policy solutions with this guy!"

Tell us again about Democrats "scorching" bipartisanship, you fucking skanky-ass sac of infected pus*.

*McConnell. I'm saying McConnell is a skanky-ass sac of infected pus.

 

[ceecee]

Do you think that kind of thing Z Buck McFate was talking about actually works? I'm skeptical from all my years arguing about stuff on the internet. But then, it's certainly possible I wasn't doing it in a way that was conducive to their emotional needs.

No. I'm going by the experiences I've had with conservatives/right wing/Republicans in person - most of them live in another reality. I learned this by living in a red county and being involved in local governance.

 

[The Cat]

Tell us again about Democrats "scorching" bipartisanship, you fucking skanky-ass sac of infected pus*.

*McConnell. I'm saying McConnell is a skanky-ass sac of infected pus.

It's not that thing when McConnell does it. It's saavy politicking. Embrace the Double Standard. If you can afford it, and arent using your soul, you'll have more fun. Ask Joe Manchin. and all the corporate democrats who send Mitch thank you cards for being the bad guy for them...

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Do you think that kind of thing Z Buck McFate was talking about actually works? I'm skeptical from all my years arguing about stuff on the internet. But then, it's certainly possible I wasn't doing it in a way that was conducive to their emotional needs.

I honesty think something about discussing things on the internet makes people rely more on railroading, gaslighting, spastic deflection, etc.

I'm not saying I think I'm any shining example of the capacity to listen to different points of view (I generally only see it worth the effort where the other side is capable of it too, and I could do better in that regard). And I mean, the people here required enabling - if you have to soothe their ego just to interact, and get only a milder form of railroading/manipulative ad hominems in exchange for that effort. That's really not worth it, imo. (I've often thought there should be an actual politics subforum and then a "childhood baggage" version where people can try to 'finally be heard' by the parent who refused to hear them, all under the guise of 'political discourse').

I would take someone exceptionally calm, is what I'm saying. eta: And it's not going to reach even most of the people who need to hear it - but it would reach some of them, and that's how it starts. /eta

Haven't listed to the Vice clip yet, but look forward to it (and hopefully I'll be able to hear it - I rarely watch videos because my hearing loss has officially hit "severe" and I haven't gotten hearing aids yet.

 

[The Cat]

Do you think that kind of thing Z Buck McFate was talking about actually works? I'm skeptical from all my years arguing about stuff on the internet. But then, it's certainly possible I wasn't doing it in a way that was conducive to their emotional needs.

I always hope for the best; experience however has taught me to prepare for the worst. Ive come to learn that you cant change anyone's opinion on anything, they change their own minds, sometimes it seems; disturbingly at random.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

It's not that thing when McConnell does it. It's saavy politicking. Embrace the Double Standard. If you can afford it, and arent using your soul, you'll have more fun. Ask Joe Manchin. and all the corporate democrats who send Mitch thank you cards for being the bad guy for them...

Oooohhhh. *tries*

 

[The Cat]

Oooohhhh. *tries*

lol that's the bipartisan spirit.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Ignore the fact that I described it as "Jon Stewart type person". Whatever you mean by "the people" here is exactly what I'm talking about. I figured it was implied (in what I said) that anyone who has already established a politically divisive point of view won't be able to do it. Unless they have some amazing tact and can somehow reverse their image (possible, I guess, but unlikely).

ETA: And it's not about presenting a set of arguments so much as giving the other side the chance to present their argument, and then (respectfully) asking questions about everything presented until they either realize their talking points are empty *or* give an actually compelling argument. I obviously don't believe the latter will happen, but it has to be available for this to work.

"From the people" - idea came outside of media space and spreads without the help of MSM.


Plus you seem to be going again to the conventional wisdom of "we have to talk to the other side". Perhaps I wasn't clear but that is not what I am suggesting at all, especially since we can all see how that is working out. My starting point was that those like you should stop acting as there are only two sides in all this. Two sides at the opposite sides of the table and the independents somewhere in between. However that is simplistic picture because half of the country doesn't even have a place at the table (they don't vote and they gave up). Therefore instead of talking to the other side people like you should speak more to those. Since those are actually your potential allies and partners. With which you can quickly landslide your ideas even if you get just a chunk of them.


If am not mistaken on the average day the percentages look something like this population wise:

Democrat: 15%
Republican: 15%
Independent: 20%
None voters: 50%


Therefore you and people like you in my book have wrongly placed focus. Which shouldn't be on not so large group with which you are the least likely to agree on something. But instead you should search for allies and political volume somewhere else. As I said I am from multi party system and here political parties are being born and die all the time. Therefore if someone can't hold their support with voters they shouldn't have a say. Plus they should/will be phased out as a party if they truly suck.


Just imagine what would happen if the ratios were:


Democrat: 30%
Republican: 15%
Independent: 15%
None voters: 40%

What is still just fairly mild grabbing into this huge potential of people that aren't partisan at all. However you need to present argument to them (and if just 1 in 5 activates that is huge).

 

[Z Buck McFate]

"From the people" - idea came outside of media space and spreads without the help of MSM.

Just for shittles, how exactly does an idea spread outside of "media space and MSM"?

My starting point was that those like you should stop acting as there are only two sides in all this. Two sides at the opposite sides of the table and the independents somewhere in between.

Until we can establish ranked voting, there *are* two sides, and the many, many people inbetween have to choose between those two options. Not sure who "those like me" are, but I'm not sure anyone here feels like everyone in this country can cleanly fit into one or the other box.

 

[The Cat]

modern us politics is what happens when you normalize the concepts of lesser evils being one of only two choice.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Just for shittles, how exactly does an idea spread outside of "media space and MSM"?

Maybe this is cultural bias on my part but: people actually talk to each other. Also the chat on the internet would also count as "coming from the people".

Until we can establish ranked voting, there *are* two sides, and the many, many people in between have to choose between those two options. Not sure who "those like me" are, but I'm not sure anyone here feels like everyone in this country can cleanly fit into one or the other box.

Nope, you are mixing "results" with "base". Therefore what I was saying is that the people who have your political philosophy should talk much more to the people that don't even bother to vote. Since more people joining and voting is the easiest way to push through various shenanigans. Also this should rise the quality of who you actually nominate in this two party system, plus it should overpower various bad apples on your side that get through. Since with razor thin margins everyone starts to calculate over the details. What is major mechanism to slow down things (and you as a country are simply out of time).



I am simply saying that I don't really see the way how to truly win 2022 without dragging plenty of new people into the mix in order to create more "political volume". However for that you don't need to "talk to the other side". Trivial example: if the vaccines are used to chip people then how these chips get powered on the long run and how do they pass through the so narrow needle ? What returns us to the topic that both sides aren't the same. Now the only real question is how to show this. Since that should mobilize the stunned and confused people that don't vote and create clear victories. Kinda the same is with showing people that proposed law that should fix plenty of problems in the voting itself. I really doubt that most of sane people would be against that.


Trying to "steal" a part of the base of the other side is simply silly when you have so much none voters all over the place. What means that giving the mic to them (even in private) perhaps wouldn't be a bad idea. What then means that if you take a look at the bigger picture than just election results there are more than two sides in all this. Since you can have two sided conversation that doesn't involve you political rivals. In a way the media probably aren't talking about the turn out that much exactly because that opens this can of worms, that in practical sense there are more sides than two in this conversation.



I really don't think I am advocating something that is rocket science.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Maybe this is cultural bias on my part but: people actually talk to each other. Also the chat on the internet would also count as "coming from the people".

And none of the worthwhile conversations individuals have with each other would be about interviews they've seen or podcasts they've listened to? The quality of interviews or podcasts individuals listen to wouldn't effect the quality of dialogue they'd then have with each other?

Isn't it more reliable to hear an elected official's or candidate's answers to questions than to get the Cliff Notes version from a neighbor (who will instinctively be selective about what they share without even realizing they're doing it) - and, if you'll grant me that, wouldn't it be even more helpful if the person conducting the interview were skilled at listening/trying to actually understand, so that they could ask the best questions that might otherwise be roadblocks to understanding with the audience? Right now too many "journalists" let officials/candidates vomit out the vague attacks and emotionally charged buzzwords without challenging them.

Nope, you are mixing "results" with "base". Therefore what I was saying is that the people who have your political philosophy should talk much more to the people that don't even bother to vote. Since more people joining and voting is the easiest way to push through various shenanigans. Also this should rise the quality of who you actually nominate in this two party system, plus it should overpower various bad apples on your side that get through. Since with razor thin margins everyone starts to calculate over the details. What is major mechanism to slow down things (and you as a country are simply out of time).



I am simply saying that I don't really see the way how to truly win 2022 without dragging plenty of new people into the mix in order to create more "political volume". However for that you don't need to "talk to the other side". Trivial example: if the vaccines are used to chip people then how these chips get powered on the long run and how do they pass through the so narrow needle ? What returns us to the topic that both sides aren't the same. Now the only real question is how to show this. Since that should mobilize the stunned and confused people that don't vote and create clear victories. Kinda the same is with showing people that proposed law that should fix plenty of problems in the voting itself. I really doubt that most of sane people would be against that.


Trying to "steal" a part of the base of the other side is simply silly when you have so much none voters all over the place. What means that giving the mic to them (even in private) perhaps wouldn't be a bad idea. What then means that if you take a look at the bigger picture than just election results there are more than two sides in all this. Since you can have two sided conversation that doesn't involve you political rivals. In a way the media probably aren't talking about the turn out that much exactly because that opens this can of worms, that in practical sense there are more sides than two in this conversation.



I really don't think I am advocating something that is rocket science.

Right. I don't get the impression you really understand much of what I've said at all. For one, you seem to be reading far more black and white thinking into what I've said than is really there. Maybe it's the language barrier. At any rate, you're inserting stuff between the lines, it's just getting worse with every reply, and it's getting too frustrating to keep trying to figure out why it seems like you're responding to something I didn't say.

It's not like I think every single person in this country is either full blown Trumpublican or full blown Never-Trumper, and yet it sounds like that's the impression you have. And it sounds like you think my intention (in saying I wish journalists and pundits were better at their job, and used their platforms to cultivate understanding rather than stoke outrage and righteous anger) is about converting some homogenous group of die-hard Trump supporters, which you seem to think I believe makes up almost half the population? If that's correct, it's pretty far from what I was actually trying to say. The differences between people are even far more nuanced that the 4-6 groups you mention (and WAY more nuanced than the two groups you seem to believe I separate everyone into).

 

[Virtual ghost]

And none of the worthwhile conversations individuals have with each other would be about interviews they've seen or podcasts they've listened to? The quality of interviews or podcasts individuals listen to wouldn't effect the quality of dialogue they'd then have with each other?

Isn't it more reliable to hear an elected official's or candidate's answers to questions than to get the Cliff Notes version from a neighbor (who will instinctively be selective about what they share without even realizing they're doing it) - and, if you'll grant me that, wouldn't it be even more helpful if the person conducting the interview were skilled at listening/trying to actually understand, so that they could ask the best questions that might otherwise be roadblocks to understanding with the audience? Right now too many "journalists" let officials/candidates vomit out the vague attacks and emotionally charged buzzwords without challenging them.

To some degree, however this is also approach that led you to the current situation. Because people who do politics only through podcasts or media they don't really effect their immediate environment (what is vital). Of course you must pick the right time and make evaluation if you should open this conversation with person X (or pick the right place online for that). However if enough people do this in their environment that will have quite an effect on election results. Especially since none voters generally don't care about the podcasts. Therefore someone has to reach out to them personally and standard political means can't do that.

Right. I don't get the impression you really understand much of what I've said at all. For one, you seem to be reading far more black and white thinking into what I've said than is really there. Maybe it's the language barrier. At any rate, you're inserting stuff between the lines, it's just getting worse with every reply, and it's getting too frustrating to keep trying to figure out why it seems like you're responding to something I didn't say.

It's not like I think every single person in this country is either full blown Trumpublican or full blown Never-Trumper, and yet it sounds like that's the impression you have. And it sounds like you think my intention (in saying I wish journalists and pundits were better at their job, and used their platforms to cultivate understanding rather than stoke outrage and righteous anger) is about converting some homogenous group of die-hard Trump supporters, which you seem to think I believe makes up almost half the population? If that's correct, it's pretty far from what I was actually trying to say. The differences between people are even far more nuanced that the 4-6 groups you mention (and WAY more nuanced than the two groups you seem to believe I separate everyone into).

I am simply talking about the means how to get more votes for the stuff you believe in. Of course that most people wouldn't fit anywhere 100%, but that isn't how elections work (especially in US). I am simply saying that there seem to be truly plenty of people left behind, what can be electoral game changer if addressed properly. My point is simply that people like you should build understanding with those people instead of open Trumpists. Plus I will dare to say that this isn't really want media and podcasts do (as you have noticed). Since most of them are more or less trying to make some kind of status quo or cultural war out of everything. Therefore I am suggesting that it is up to an individual to actually do something and disrupt harmful narratives (since as you say the media wouldn't). What goes to the entire forum, not just you (since you guys can't afford another mass blocking after midterms). Therefore it is extra important that one side gains clear political advantage. So that this instability gets some kind of a conclusion and that the country can move forward.




I will stop here.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

To some degree, however this is also approach that led you to the current situation. Because people who do politics only through podcasts or media they don't really effect their immediate environment (what is vital). Of course you must pick the right time and make evaluation if you should open this conversation with person X (or pick the right place online for that). However if enough people do this in their environment that will have quite an effect on election results. Especially since none voters generally don't care about the podcasts. Therefore someone has to reach out to them personally and standard political means can't do that.

Devil's advocate answer: I think that individuals talking to other individuals without referencing a specific source to confirm what they're saying could arguably describe Facebook. And I think there's a very good argument that Facebook (and other such venues) is actually precisely what got us here.

Grown up response: I don't think you're putting due emphasis on the importance of having a source of reliable information or solid ideas to share in the first place. Either that or you're getting the impression that I said individuals talking to other individuals isn't important, all this country needs is the one thing I mentioned I wish I'd see more of. And that's not what I said. I'm not disagreeing that individuals talking to other individuals can play an important role (though I'll add that it's not as simple as you're making it out to be, not any ol' body can do it, because if you don't have the zen to effectively listen to responses when you're talking to people then you're probably just making your own party look bad). All I've been saying is that a more balanced source of reporting, someone who was actually trying to understand the other side in order to report what the other side thinks - rather than simply allowing their preferred official/candidate air time to regurgitate the same tired-but-still-emotionally-charged talking points without challenging them whilst selectively choosing opposing sound bites that'll cause the most outrage - is something that'd be immeasurably helpful and doesn't even currently exist.

*The "other side" here varies across different topics, it's not one homogenous group always against the opposing homogenous group. Some - since the Republican Exodus from the Trumpublican party - are actually differences that exist within the same bigger umbrella of (new) Democrat or (new) Republican). An example of "other sides" that exist within the same party currently might be the topic of cancelling all student loans. A good reporter (or podcaster, or whatever) would be able to effectively present both sides.

I am simply talking about the means how to get more votes for the stuff you believe in. Of course that most people wouldn't fit anywhere 100%, but that isn't how elections work (especially in US). I am simply saying that there seem to be truly plenty of people left behind, what can be electoral game changer if addressed properly. My point is simply that people like you should build understanding with those people instead of open Trumpists. Plus I will dare to say that this isn't really want media and podcasts do (as you have noticed). Since most of them are more or less trying to make some kind of status quo or cultural war out of everything. Therefore I am suggesting that it is up to an individual to actually do something and disrupt harmful narratives (since as you say the media wouldn't). What goes to the entire forum, not just you (since you guys can't afford another mass blocking after midterms). Therefore it is extra important that one side gains clear political advantage. So that this instability gets some kind of a conclusion and that the country can move forward.

Maybe there's a different mentality in non-voters in your country. My own past experience with people who don't vote is that they don't want to talk politics either. "Neither side can be believed" kind of stuff. This is from the Before Times, but I'd be very surprised if they're generally more amenable to hearing about it now.

And I don't think it's productive to focus more on either "non-voter" or "Trump-voter" - since neither of those groups are homogenous either - and rather choose the individuals within each (and/or other groups) who are capable of actual dialogue, capable of examining their own beliefs in the face of contradictory 'proof' when it's strong enough, who don't resort to railroading or manipulation to 'win' being right - who can actually reason well enough to know when an argument merits credence on it's own vs. can't recognize when an argument itself is weak (but faith in the thing being true is so strong they can't see the weakness of the argument). There are the Trump folks like the ones ceecee described. In my experience, there seem to be 3 categories: aggressive railroading (trying to win being right through sheer force of will); manipulative ad hominem sort of stuff (TDS, "orange man bad" dismissals); and spastic deflection (when people have no idea how they sound, they're all over the place and practically spewing word salad, yet their conviction that they're right is so strong that they seem to assume - no matter what tangent their mind has taken them on - they're magically presenting strong arguments). <- Those things are pretty pointless to circumvent. I think this is the point you've been trying to make, and I already agree with it. But I'd lump the "neither side can be believed" non-voters in with them. When it comes to changing hearts and minds, it requires being someone whose own heart and mind can change (because people can tell) in the first place*, and finding others in other groups. I disagree that we'd find the biggest population of those in the non-voter group. They're in every group. It's just a matter of finding them.


*I personally am not zen. I live in a very mixed area - 60/40 Trump to Biden ratio, according to that recent NYT page that calculated the ratio of the latest election results where we live, and isolated bubbles of both just a stone's throw in either direction. But I know full well that I'm only doing damage to my 'party' if I get into a conversation with anyone who uses even a modicum of the things I mentioned (aggressive railroading, manipulation/gaslighting/spastic deflection). I don't hurl insults in person, but I shoot "Are you fucking retarded?!?" looks and/or it bleeds out into my tone. I'm not proud of the fact that I don't have patience for it, but there are a lot of things in my life I could stand to work on that'd improve the quality of my life and that's just one of them. (For the record, I don't have much patience for that kind of behavior in my own party either).

It would help me cultivate the patience, exponentially, if I had access to something that'd help me understand their general points of view BEFORE going into conversation with them though - and that's where the kind of interviews/podcasts/whatever I've been describing would come in awful handy. If someone talented and patient enough to suss that kind of explanation of them, so that I wouldn't have to - someone far more talented and patient than I am - it'd go a *long, long way* to helping get to a place where I COULD get into conversation without worrying about a "What the fuck is wrong with you?!?!" attitude taking over.