2 ms·

I never argued that the people themselves don't genuinely hold different beliefs about gun rights, abortion, religion, LGBT, etc. I meant two things: 1. in ter

I never argued that the people themselves don't genuinely hold different beliefs about gun rights, abortion, religion, LGBT, etc. I meant two things: 1. in terms of their effect on peoples' lives, these issues pale in comparison to certain other ones AND 2. Republican politicians are using these highly emotionally-charged social issues to induce people to vote against their own interests on dimensions of governance that would meaningfully impact their quality of life.

Consultant32452 7y ago
What makes you think you have any insight into what is in their best interest, which of their interests should be most important to them, or how they should measure their quality of life?
- realtalk_sp 7y ago
  If you don't have cost-effective access to good healthcare, you could literally die. And if you're poorly educated, you're much more likely to be less financially well off and that could itself lead to all kinds of suffering. But I get the sense that you're aiming for the presentation of being objectively insightful when really you're quite transparently arguing in bad faith for the sake of provocation, so I'll just leave it at that.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    Is it so difficult to believe that a person could want cost effective healthcare but have vastly different ethical boundaries with regard to how they would be willing to achieve that goal?
  - mixmastamyk 7y ago
    The democrats didn’t deliver cost-effective healthcare or education or anything they keep trying to subsidize. Prices keep going up. Funny how that works. The smugness is just icing on the cake.
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      I don't think these details about specific policy outcomes is where the battle is. Look at the way he's responding. This isn't about whether your ideas have better outcomes than my ideas. This is about ascribing you with bad motives, disingenuousness, or portraying you as a simpleton who can't understand political manipulation. This is about controlling you, putting you in the bad/stupid box so you can be dismissed and controlled. Their tactic is to call you stupid, liar, racist, sexist... You know the list. If you argue on their terms, if you start arguing you're not stupid for example, you're accepting their framing. This is a losing battle. Instead I find it's more effective to simply draw attention to their tactic. Once the tactic is revealed it loses efficacy. If I genuinely believe you to be stupid, evil, disingenuous, etc. I won't be able to genuinely hear you. You're just making noise. I would encourage you to try this experiment out some time. Instead of arguing specific policy, point out the tactic. It's repeatable and quite telling.

Consultant32452 7y ago

What makes you think you have any insight into what is in their best interest, which of their interests should be most important to them, or how they should measure their quality of life?

realtalk_sp 7y ago
If you don't have cost-effective access to good healthcare, you could literally die. And if you're poorly educated, you're much more likely to be less financially well off and that could itself lead to all kinds of suffering. But I get the sense that you're aiming for the presentation of being objectively insightful when really you're quite transparently arguing in bad faith for the sake of provocation, so I'll just leave it at that.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  Is it so difficult to believe that a person could want cost effective healthcare but have vastly different ethical boundaries with regard to how they would be willing to achieve that goal?
- mixmastamyk 7y ago
  The democrats didn’t deliver cost-effective healthcare or education or anything they keep trying to subsidize. Prices keep going up. Funny how that works. The smugness is just icing on the cake.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    I don't think these details about specific policy outcomes is where the battle is. Look at the way he's responding. This isn't about whether your ideas have better outcomes than my ideas. This is about ascribing you with bad motives, disingenuousness, or portraying you as a simpleton who can't understand political manipulation. This is about controlling you, putting you in the bad/stupid box so you can be dismissed and controlled. Their tactic is to call you stupid, liar, racist, sexist... You know the list. If you argue on their terms, if you start arguing you're not stupid for example, you're accepting their framing. This is a losing battle. Instead I find it's more effective to simply draw attention to their tactic. Once the tactic is revealed it loses efficacy. If I genuinely believe you to be stupid, evil, disingenuous, etc. I won't be able to genuinely hear you. You're just making noise. I would encourage you to try this experiment out some time. Instead of arguing specific policy, point out the tactic. It's repeatable and quite telling.