2 ms·
Not so much one group, but rather I was thinking of the directionality of emotional arguments. "Think of the children!" and all that. In a competition between
by diggernet 6y ago
Not so much one group, but rather I was thinking of the directionality of emotional arguments. "Think of the children!" and all that. In a competition between a powerful emotional argument and logical counters to it (uninformed vs informed), the uninformed will not be voting randomly.
- basch 6y agoI don't think thats anything new. Misinformation, propaganda, bias, and persuasion have been a part of democracy since forever. They are really parts of it. Theres nothing to say misinformed votes shouldnt count. >In a competition between a powerful emotional argument and logical counters to it Our current situation seems like two powerful emotional arguments pitted against each other, with no logical counters or nuanced precision. They are both yelling the same things too, just in different forms. Most posturing right now boils down to different forms of economic safety and physical safety. Are you safe from the police? Are you safe from crime? Are you safe from unemployment? Are you safe from health care costs? Are you safe from government inefficiency and overspending? Are you safe from having to fund your neighbor? Do you have the freedom to be who you want to be (whether that means not being Christian, or not serving non-Christians?) They are all selling themselves, utilizing the same base fears. The main difference between the parties appears to be one being good at bending the rules to win, and one priding itself in losing with integrity. Utilitarian vs Principled. Neither seems super concerned with facts. If they were, they would more loudly make arguments against their own cases, to demonstrate strength.