3 ms·
> It's a lot easier to do something than it is to stop people from doing something. Usually to prevent actions you need total control or strong incentives. Tru
by aleph_minus_one 3y ago
> It's a lot easier to do something than it is to stop people from doing something. Usually to prevent actions you need total control or strong incentives.
True. And because of this, you need to increase the incentives for your side: create a website that lists all politicians that are in favour of the dubious law by their individual names. Use a wording for these politicians that is not punishable by libel, but near to it. Even after such a law becomes passed, make sure that the politicians who voted in favour of it will spend the rest of their lives deeply regretting their decision in sorrow so that hardly any future politician will dare to vote for similar laws.
Summarizingly: do everything in your power that the reputation of *every* politician who voted in favour of the law becomes *destroyed* in important segments of the society.
- antonvs 3y agoThat’s more of a revenge fantasy than a viable political strategy. Of course, you’re not the first person to think of it - in fact, many people have tried this strategy, it’s one of the most common ones in politics. “Attack ads” are an example of it. And they’re effective, to an extent. But they also have a major negative aspect, which is that they reduce the importance of reputation - it becomes an unreliable indicator, because almost every politician’s reputation ends up “destroyed” as you put it. The problem is that people who disagree with you are just as capable of slandering the politicians you agree with as you are for the ones you disagree with. So you end up with a race to the bottom, with accusations becoming more and more hysterical, completely drowning any real signal, and teaching people to ignore it all as noise.