4 ms·

Eh, the easiest most effective arguments are also the most toxic. The people who disagree with me aren't just wrong but they're disingenuous liars with an agen

Eh, the easiest most effective arguments are also the most toxic. The people who disagree with me aren't just wrong but they're disingenuous liars with an agenda so terrible even they won't admit to it. The people who disagree with me don't even understand what they're saying because they're just mindlessly repeating things they have been indoctrinated to believe. Neither of those will convince anyone of anything but it makes people who already agree really happy and it drives those people who disagree up a wall.

vkou 5y ago
There's a reason for this. The reason for it is that you don't win elections by convincing the other side that they are wrong, and they should vote for you. You win elections by convincing your side to show up. And the best way to do it is by telling your side that giving the victory to your opponent is voting for a Trump.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The reason for it is that you don't win elections by convincing the other side that they are wrong, and they should vote for you. > You win elections by convincing your side to show up. And the other side not to, either voluntarily or by targeted voter suppression and disenfranchisement. At least, that’s all true in the US, but its mostly artifacts of a strongly-structurally-reinforced two-party system. In multiparty democracy, positive turnout tactics over persuasion is less effective because the activation energy to move to another party is smaller because you don’t just have polar opposites, and negative turnout tactics are less effective because you’ve got more targets to suppress. So persuasion is more important.
  - belorn 5y ago
    We see the same patterns in multiparty democracy. It could simply be behavior drawn from US influence, but I doubt it. What the article did not mention (but maybe the study did?) is that under brain scanners, few things trigger pleasure as much as imagining justified violence. It is also very addictive in term of neurochemistry. In multiparty democracies, the one thing that can however temporary reduce the problem is the consequences of minority government. If enough parties refuses to talk to each other, and always vote against the others, you end up with a situation where the majority will votes no to everything. This does not work, so people then start to prioritize cooperation for a while.
    - hackeraccount 5y ago
      "Justified violence" I hadn't read that but I've always thought that there's nothing sweeter then righteous anger. The voice in the back of your head is silenced and you can finally do exactly what you've wanted because ... why? That has been my saving grace in moments like that I think. I tend to hesitate for just a bit before acting and while that's just as often a bad thing in moments like that it's just enough time for that voice to whisper "How will this look? What would you think about what you want to do right now if someone else did it? Will this action change anything that's happened?"
- yesenadam 5y ago
  > you don't win elections by convincing the other side that they are wrong, and they should vote for you. > You win elections by convincing your side to show up. Well, in my country and many others, voting is compulsory, so we don't have this problem.
  - Sanzig 5y ago
    I think I've changed my stance on compulsory voting over the years. My old view was that voting should be as easy as possible (advance polling days, no advance registration requirement, mail-in ballot options), but at the same time it shouldn't be mandatory. I used to view compulsory voting as an impediment to the democratic process: if you aren't motivated enough to vote, why should you get to weigh in? These days, I think compulsory voting may have a whole lot of value as an effective countermeasure to polarization. Political campaigns would be forced to shift from whipping up furor among existing supporters to reaching across partisan divides in order to convince independents and persuadable individuals in the other camps to vote for you. Have there been any studies done in this regard?
- guerrilla 5y ago
  In the US*. People flow betweem parties much more in Europe.

vkou 5y ago

There's a reason for this. The reason for it is that you don't win elections by convincing the other side that they are wrong, and they should vote for you. You win elections by convincing your side to show up. And the best way to do it is by telling your side that giving the victory to your opponent is voting for a Trump.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> The reason for it is that you don't win elections by convincing the other side that they are wrong, and they should vote for you. > You win elections by convincing your side to show up. And the other side not to, either voluntarily or by targeted voter suppression and disenfranchisement. At least, that’s all true in the US, but its mostly artifacts of a strongly-structurally-reinforced two-party system. In multiparty democracy, positive turnout tactics over persuasion is less effective because the activation energy to move to another party is smaller because you don’t just have polar opposites, and negative turnout tactics are less effective because you’ve got more targets to suppress. So persuasion is more important.
- belorn 5y ago
  We see the same patterns in multiparty democracy. It could simply be behavior drawn from US influence, but I doubt it. What the article did not mention (but maybe the study did?) is that under brain scanners, few things trigger pleasure as much as imagining justified violence. It is also very addictive in term of neurochemistry. In multiparty democracies, the one thing that can however temporary reduce the problem is the consequences of minority government. If enough parties refuses to talk to each other, and always vote against the others, you end up with a situation where the majority will votes no to everything. This does not work, so people then start to prioritize cooperation for a while.
  - hackeraccount 5y ago
    "Justified violence" I hadn't read that but I've always thought that there's nothing sweeter then righteous anger. The voice in the back of your head is silenced and you can finally do exactly what you've wanted because ... why? That has been my saving grace in moments like that I think. I tend to hesitate for just a bit before acting and while that's just as often a bad thing in moments like that it's just enough time for that voice to whisper "How will this look? What would you think about what you want to do right now if someone else did it? Will this action change anything that's happened?"
yesenadam 5y ago
> you don't win elections by convincing the other side that they are wrong, and they should vote for you. > You win elections by convincing your side to show up. Well, in my country and many others, voting is compulsory, so we don't have this problem.
- Sanzig 5y ago
  I think I've changed my stance on compulsory voting over the years. My old view was that voting should be as easy as possible (advance polling days, no advance registration requirement, mail-in ballot options), but at the same time it shouldn't be mandatory. I used to view compulsory voting as an impediment to the democratic process: if you aren't motivated enough to vote, why should you get to weigh in? These days, I think compulsory voting may have a whole lot of value as an effective countermeasure to polarization. Political campaigns would be forced to shift from whipping up furor among existing supporters to reaching across partisan divides in order to convince independents and persuadable individuals in the other camps to vote for you. Have there been any studies done in this regard?
guerrilla 5y ago
In the US*. People flow betweem parties much more in Europe.