5 ms·

Understanding, absolutely. None of us are immune from propaganda, and most of us have at one time or another been swayed by selective arguments and echo chamber

Understanding, absolutely. None of us are immune from propaganda, and most of us have at one time or another been swayed by selective arguments and echo chambers to behave poorly. I don’t like that you have empathy for people who are right this second steering the government in a project of performative cruelty against me. I think you should withhold your empathy until they’ve been stopped and appropriately punished for their misdeeds.

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
btown 3mo ago
To be very clear: there's a difference between the people shaping/benefiting from/profiting from this system, and those being shaped by it. And, without sharing too much personal info, I am very much one of those being attacked by such a project of performative cruelty, and far too many people I know and love have suffered - and the architects of these projects must not escape accountability. But I have to believe that a sizable number of people exist out there: the ones who have not carpetbagged on the ragebait economy, but who have been the ones taken down an algorithmic video-feed rabbit hole primed because of the news channel playing at their workplace or words of hatred shared by a community leader... that this person has been taught to fear rather than understand, that that person still has the innate capacity to understand, and that a future can be built on that capacity.
iamnothere 3mo ago
Surely punishing the people will make them vote for us!
- estearum 3mo ago
  Do you think justice should only be dealt out when you think it'll generate a positive outcome for you personally on the other side? Seems to me that people who have committed crimes should be punished for those crimes. Call it "LAW AND ORDER!!!!" or something
  - iamnothere 3mo ago
    I think that winning (and retaining political advantage over time) is probably a prerequisite for enacting any punishments, much less correcting other issues.
    - estearum 3mo ago
      Uhhhh... sure...? Are you implying that "the other side" will never again hold power? Because that's a very silly view, if so. I'm quite sure the single most popular platform someone could run on today is simply "aggressively prosecute every single crime committed by the MAGA apparatus."
      - iamnothere 3mo ago
        Punitive campaigns seem to work best with the right wing base. There’s a large squishy center (and a sizable segment of the left) that doesn’t vote when things go too negative. If you want to contrast with a real world example, Obama won as an unknown candidate running on “hope and change” despite racial bias. But it’s probably better to lose if presenting a positive message would make you feel icky.
        estearum 3mo ago
        All available evidence points toward my claim: Americans don't really agree on how they want the future to look. However, they do agree on how they don't want it to look. The rampant corruption, state brutality, and criminality of MAGA is unpopular across the board.
        iamnothere 3mo ago
        Two things can be true at the same time: Americans dislike the status quo, and they don’t support angry/negative Democratic politicians for President. See also: claims that Sanders was “too angry” (lmao), the “Dean scream” smear campaign, characterizing Clinton as a cackling witch, etc.
- yongjik 3mo ago
  Increasing gas prices seems very well correlated with people not voting for the incumbent party, and I can't imagine these people not feeling they're being punished by the price, so ... ... yeah I'd say punishing the people can make them vote for us, or at least not vote for not-us, which is basically equivalent.
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
- SpicyLemonZest 3mo ago
  I don't accept the idea that e.g. Greg Bovino should be allowed to have brownshirts murder people in my city as long as enough voters support him. I reject the legitimacy of any political system that can't or won't punish him for his crimes. I do have a lot of faith in democracy, so I'm optimistic that most people can be persuaded to accept his punishment if the argument is presented well. I'm sure some number of people who called for him to murder people will pretend they were never on his side, and that'll frustrate me to no end, but such is life.
  - iamnothere 3mo ago
    There’s a difference between wanting to punish the officials responsible, and wanting to punish the people who elected them. In the context of the broader discussion it sounded like you were advocating for the latter, which isn’t a winning strategy. But even if you only mean the officials, punishment is a bad centerpiece of a campaign; it’s something that one should do quietly after you have already won. (The exception is right wing politicians, who seem to be allowed to win elections while openly calling for punishment of their opponents. Call it a quirk of the US electorate, or a flaw in human nature, who knows. It is what it is.)
anonymars 3mo ago
Are you perhaps mixing up empathy and sympathy?
- SpicyLemonZest 3mo ago
  No, it's the idea of "getting in their minds" and understanding what their perspective must be from the inside that I object to. It's not the right time for that. If a bully starts punching the guy who lives one house north of me, I need you to help get the bully off of him, not start theorizing about why bullies act this way and why people might support them.
  - anonymars 3mo ago
    Who is the singular bully in this analogy? It seems to me the choice is between "civil war" and "influencing people to vote differently" -- the latter of which requires understanding them (for example, the common theme seems to be screaming "change, any change")
    - SpicyLemonZest 3mo ago
      It seems to you incorrectly. The President of the United States is going to declare a civil war when he loses the 2028 election, perhaps as soon when his party loses the 2026 election. There's no choice we have in that, only in how we respond.

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

btown 3mo ago

To be very clear: there's a difference between the people shaping/benefiting from/profiting from this system, and those being shaped by it. And, without sharing too much personal info, I am very much one of those being attacked by such a project of performative cruelty, and far too many people I know and love have suffered - and the architects of these projects must not escape accountability. But I have to believe that a sizable number of people exist out there: the ones who have not carpetbagged on the ragebait economy, but who have been the ones taken down an algorithmic video-feed rabbit hole primed because of the news channel playing at their workplace or words of hatred shared by a community leader... that this person has been taught to fear rather than understand, that that person still has the innate capacity to understand, and that a future can be built on that capacity.

iamnothere 3mo ago

Surely punishing the people will make them vote for us!

estearum 3mo ago
Do you think justice should only be dealt out when you think it'll generate a positive outcome for you personally on the other side? Seems to me that people who have committed crimes should be punished for those crimes. Call it "LAW AND ORDER!!!!" or something
- iamnothere 3mo ago
  I think that winning (and retaining political advantage over time) is probably a prerequisite for enacting any punishments, much less correcting other issues.
  - estearum 3mo ago
    Uhhhh... sure...? Are you implying that "the other side" will never again hold power? Because that's a very silly view, if so. I'm quite sure the single most popular platform someone could run on today is simply "aggressively prosecute every single crime committed by the MAGA apparatus."
    - iamnothere 3mo ago
      Punitive campaigns seem to work best with the right wing base. There’s a large squishy center (and a sizable segment of the left) that doesn’t vote when things go too negative. If you want to contrast with a real world example, Obama won as an unknown candidate running on “hope and change” despite racial bias. But it’s probably better to lose if presenting a positive message would make you feel icky.
      - estearum 3mo ago
        All available evidence points toward my claim: Americans don't really agree on how they want the future to look. However, they do agree on how they don't want it to look. The rampant corruption, state brutality, and criminality of MAGA is unpopular across the board.
        iamnothere 3mo ago
        Two things can be true at the same time: Americans dislike the status quo, and they don’t support angry/negative Democratic politicians for President. See also: claims that Sanders was “too angry” (lmao), the “Dean scream” smear campaign, characterizing Clinton as a cackling witch, etc.
yongjik 3mo ago
Increasing gas prices seems very well correlated with people not voting for the incumbent party, and I can't imagine these people not feeling they're being punished by the price, so ... ... yeah I'd say punishing the people can make them vote for us, or at least not vote for not-us, which is basically equivalent.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
SpicyLemonZest 3mo ago
I don't accept the idea that e.g. Greg Bovino should be allowed to have brownshirts murder people in my city as long as enough voters support him. I reject the legitimacy of any political system that can't or won't punish him for his crimes. I do have a lot of faith in democracy, so I'm optimistic that most people can be persuaded to accept his punishment if the argument is presented well. I'm sure some number of people who called for him to murder people will pretend they were never on his side, and that'll frustrate me to no end, but such is life.
- iamnothere 3mo ago
  There’s a difference between wanting to punish the officials responsible, and wanting to punish the people who elected them. In the context of the broader discussion it sounded like you were advocating for the latter, which isn’t a winning strategy. But even if you only mean the officials, punishment is a bad centerpiece of a campaign; it’s something that one should do quietly after you have already won. (The exception is right wing politicians, who seem to be allowed to win elections while openly calling for punishment of their opponents. Call it a quirk of the US electorate, or a flaw in human nature, who knows. It is what it is.)

anonymars 3mo ago

Are you perhaps mixing up empathy and sympathy?

SpicyLemonZest 3mo ago
No, it's the idea of "getting in their minds" and understanding what their perspective must be from the inside that I object to. It's not the right time for that. If a bully starts punching the guy who lives one house north of me, I need you to help get the bully off of him, not start theorizing about why bullies act this way and why people might support them.
- anonymars 3mo ago
  Who is the singular bully in this analogy? It seems to me the choice is between "civil war" and "influencing people to vote differently" -- the latter of which requires understanding them (for example, the common theme seems to be screaming "change, any change")
  - SpicyLemonZest 3mo ago
    It seems to you incorrectly. The President of the United States is going to declare a civil war when he loses the 2028 election, perhaps as soon when his party loses the 2026 election. There's no choice we have in that, only in how we respond.