3 ms·

> You can only fight ideas with better ideas. The problem with this is that human beings will reject ideas that don't agree with what they want to hear, like t

by pyre 9y ago

> You can only fight ideas with better ideas. The problem with this is that human beings will reject ideas that don't agree with what they want to hear, like the populations of coal towns in Appalachia that want to blame "Liberals" for their lot in life because they've hitched their wagon to the (dying) coal industry and don't want to change. It's like the Simpsons Principal Skinner meme. "Could I be wrong about something? No! It's definitely everyone else that is wrong!" Also, ideas don't woo people in and of themselves. Why do you think that charismatic leaders can swap entire populations to follow horrible ideologies that offer simple and easy solutions to their problems by throwing other people under the bus to pave the way to a better future for a select few?

unabridged 9y ago
Empty charismatic leaders only work when there is no good alternative offered. People are rational, they rejected Clinton because her policy was a continuation of Obama's 8 years. And in those 8 years the quality of life in Appalachia has not improved. Coal to them is a dream, its the last time people in their family and towns had money to spend and were happy. Telling them their glory days ruined the planet is not a way to convince them of anything. The problem with Appalachia is that nothing short of basic income will save them. No rational investor is going to build any new manufacturing there. And even if they extract natural resources, it will be done with 1/1000th of the workforce and the value will flow right to the pockets of a large corporation with shareholders far, far away. So in effect almost every major politician is lying to them (and they know it) so they are willing to try anything.
- pyre 9y ago
  (Focusing just on Appalachia is going off on a bit of a tangent, but in any case...) This is the issue. There are no good solutions for Appalachia, but they don't want to hear that because the reality isn't as good as the fantasy that people like Trump want to sell them (that the "good ole days" are coming back). Placing blame on "Liberals" and hitching their horse to Trump is living in a fantasy land rather than dealing with their situation rationally. The reality, is that those towns are basically dead. They are slated to become modern-day ghost towns unless someone can figure out a way to bring a new industry to those areas. "Liberals" didn't bring about this situation, the realities of coal did. Maybe the "Liberals" didn't do anything of note to help them, but that's different than saying that this situation wouldn't exist if only the "Liberals" hadn't been in power. To bring this back to the topic at hand, it's an example of how it's easier to sell a positive fantasy than a negative reality (or even a long-term positive reality that has an unpalatable -- e.g. need to move away, retrain -- short-term reality). So this idea that we need to "fight ideas with ideas" fails in the face of realities like this. The best ideas don't always win. People will fling themselves off of a cliff just because someone convinced them that the landing will be soft (even if it doesn't make any logical sense).
  - FooHentai 9y ago
    >Maybe the "Liberals" didn't do anything of note to help them, but that's different than saying that this situation wouldn't exist if only the "Liberals" hadn't been in power. Agree, but to return to the topic of depressed rural/ex-industrial areas and Appalachia specifically - That's not the sentiment. The sentiment is '8 years of Obama delivered no improvement and only a continuation of the decline' and the response to that isn't 'hitch a horse to Trump' it's 'At this point what harm is there in a risky gamble? Spin the wheel and roll the dice'. Appalachian fatalism is a thing. It's not helped by American elections being rigged as a two-party affair. Combine these and it should be no surprise that many end up pushing their chips all-in and taking what might be a 50/50 chance. But the odds aren't even that bad, from the perspective of these people. What do these people have to lose from this gamble? Economically? Already fucked. Socially? Reproductive Rights/LGBT Rights/Foreign Relations are nowhere near the top of their list if they are on the list at all. You're spinning an enormous segment of the population as irrational actors, but they are not.
    - pyre 9y ago
      > You're spinning an enormous segment of the population as irrational actors, but they are not. From their frame of reference, maybe. On the other hand, if the only industry supporting your town is a dying industry, then you have a couple of possibilities: 1. Move elsewhere that has economic prosperity. 2. Get another industry to move in that will help prop up the town's economy. 3. Repair the dying industry. Option #3 is likely the hardest, and the most likely to fail, yet it seems to be the only option that people in Appalachia want to hear about.

by pyre 9y ago

unabridged 9y ago

Empty charismatic leaders only work when there is no good alternative offered. People are rational, they rejected Clinton because her policy was a continuation of Obama's 8 years. And in those 8 years the quality of life in Appalachia has not improved. Coal to them is a dream, its the last time people in their family and towns had money to spend and were happy. Telling them their glory days ruined the planet is not a way to convince them of anything. The problem with Appalachia is that nothing short of basic income will save them. No rational investor is going to build any new manufacturing there. And even if they extract natural resources, it will be done with 1/1000th of the workforce and the value will flow right to the pockets of a large corporation with shareholders far, far away. So in effect almost every major politician is lying to them (and they know it) so they are willing to try anything.

pyre 9y ago
(Focusing just on Appalachia is going off on a bit of a tangent, but in any case...) This is the issue. There are no good solutions for Appalachia, but they don't want to hear that because the reality isn't as good as the fantasy that people like Trump want to sell them (that the "good ole days" are coming back). Placing blame on "Liberals" and hitching their horse to Trump is living in a fantasy land rather than dealing with their situation rationally. The reality, is that those towns are basically dead. They are slated to become modern-day ghost towns unless someone can figure out a way to bring a new industry to those areas. "Liberals" didn't bring about this situation, the realities of coal did. Maybe the "Liberals" didn't do anything of note to help them, but that's different than saying that this situation wouldn't exist if only the "Liberals" hadn't been in power. To bring this back to the topic at hand, it's an example of how it's easier to sell a positive fantasy than a negative reality (or even a long-term positive reality that has an unpalatable -- e.g. need to move away, retrain -- short-term reality). So this idea that we need to "fight ideas with ideas" fails in the face of realities like this. The best ideas don't always win. People will fling themselves off of a cliff just because someone convinced them that the landing will be soft (even if it doesn't make any logical sense).
- FooHentai 9y ago
  >Maybe the "Liberals" didn't do anything of note to help them, but that's different than saying that this situation wouldn't exist if only the "Liberals" hadn't been in power. Agree, but to return to the topic of depressed rural/ex-industrial areas and Appalachia specifically - That's not the sentiment. The sentiment is '8 years of Obama delivered no improvement and only a continuation of the decline' and the response to that isn't 'hitch a horse to Trump' it's 'At this point what harm is there in a risky gamble? Spin the wheel and roll the dice'. Appalachian fatalism is a thing. It's not helped by American elections being rigged as a two-party affair. Combine these and it should be no surprise that many end up pushing their chips all-in and taking what might be a 50/50 chance. But the odds aren't even that bad, from the perspective of these people. What do these people have to lose from this gamble? Economically? Already fucked. Socially? Reproductive Rights/LGBT Rights/Foreign Relations are nowhere near the top of their list if they are on the list at all. You're spinning an enormous segment of the population as irrational actors, but they are not.
  - pyre 9y ago
    > You're spinning an enormous segment of the population as irrational actors, but they are not. From their frame of reference, maybe. On the other hand, if the only industry supporting your town is a dying industry, then you have a couple of possibilities: 1. Move elsewhere that has economic prosperity. 2. Get another industry to move in that will help prop up the town's economy. 3. Repair the dying industry. Option #3 is likely the hardest, and the most likely to fail, yet it seems to be the only option that people in Appalachia want to hear about.