Comment on dear republicans, what's the point of alienating every single ally of the US?
Objection@lemmy.ml 4 days agoHow is that relevant?
Because you’re trying to argue that it’s something that has a direct material impact on the average person. Again, as always, you’re getting distracted by moralizing, “This should be an issue” but that’s not what we’re discussing. The fact is, regardless of what people should or shouldn’t care about, regardless of how bad a given event is or isn’t, the fact is that people care the most about things that materially impact them or people they know personally. Inflation, therefore, is more important to the average person than January 6th, and if you go on and on about Jan 6 while failing to address their economic concerns, you will lose. Again, like what happened.
If you don’t already think the damage done to American democracy on Jan 6th doesn’t, by definition, have an impact on the average American then you have some other grave issue in your “philosophy”. If you just don’t care about democracy because you’re some kind of brainlet tankie then RIP, waste of time.
Again, it’s not about what is important or what I think is important, you’re getting distracted by moralizing. It’s about understanding reality as it is. And reality as it is is that people care about things that affect them in direct, material ways more than things that don’t, and January 6th had no direct, material impact on the vast majority of people.
You can whine all you want about how people “should” be more concerned about it, but all you’re doing is railing against the realities of human psychology. It is what it is, not everyone cares about the stuff you care about, even if the stuff you care about is really important. You might as well complain about the laws of physics, maybe the universe would be better if the second law of thermodynamics didn’t exist, but that doesn’t really matter, because you can’t change it, and, similarly, you can’t wave a wand and get people to stop prioritizing their direct, material interests.
Understanding and adapting to what voters actually care about is what allows you to win elections which is what allows you to take power and address the concerns you have and keep the other side out of power.
zenitsu@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
You keep repeating this meaningless slogan as if we live in a world where morality doesn’t exist or matter.
Agreed, not full picture though. Let me know in what way did Trump do a better job of addressing economic concerns given his already shit economic policies during his first term and his inability to communicate any meaningful plans.
But they don’t genuinely care, because if they did they’d try to be minimally informed. It’s all just based on emoting and slogans, It’s all morons falling for braindead propaganda by bad actors.
Objection@lemmy.ml 4 days ago
Sure, but I’m not talking about anything related to morality. I’m talking about the way the world is and does work, not how the world ought to work. I’d be happy to discuss morality some other time, but when we’re trying to understand physical reality, we need to be able to set it aside. But you refuse to do that. You aren’t capable of looking at things objectively because you’re always immediately trying to inject you opinions about how it ought to be.
He didn’t do much, beyond positioning himself as an “outsider” as he does. Mainly, it was less than Trump did it right and more that Kamala did it horribly wrong. Inflation had had a direct, negative material impact on everyone in the country, and Kamala failed to distance herself from the Biden administration, which people assumed was responsible because that’s when it happened.
And this is where you inject, “But Biden wasn’t responsible,” even though that’s already been established and it doesn’t really matter. People still made the connection and prioritized the issue, in both cases, because of how brains work.
Ok then, great, should be easy then. Just be a bad actor and get the morons to fall for your propaganda. Then you can get elected and address whatever concerns you like.
You can complain that voters don’t care or aren’t informed enough, but unless you have an actual plan to change psychology on a mass scale, you’re just whining that the laws of physics don’t work the way you want them to.
zenitsu@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
No, you’re just trying to cleanly separate morality from real events as if this is a fucking video game. The moral fiber of politicians for example **is **and **should ** be a concern because it does have an impact IRL.
Oh really? was it Kamala that ranted about Haitians eating pets? She shouldn’t have to distance herself from the Biden administration because the administration objectively did a good job. It’s really hard for you to admit that people are just uninformed or misinformed by propaganda.
This is also where you realise that morality actually exists and is something to account for.
Objection@lemmy.ml 4 days ago
Even that statement is missing the point. “Is and should be a concern.” You can be concerned about it all you want, but we’re talking about how voters will and have behaved, and their behavior has clearly demonstrated that an insufficient number of people care about such things for it to be decisive. Should they care? I don’t care whether they should care.
Did those things have a direct, material impact on broad segments of the population? Maybe some Hatians faced more discrimination and were alienated, but that’s a hell of a lot fewer people than were affected by inflation, so the impact it had on the outcome of the election was probably negligible.
And there you go again. Whether she should or shouldn’t have to is irrelevant, you’re drifting off into “ought’s” again. Regardless of whether she should have had to, she did have to.
I already said that they were ages ago. In fact, I was the one who first pointed out that “a wave of global inflation caused incumbent parties in many countries to lose elections.” You only assume I can’t “admit” it, despite me explicitly telling you it, because you can’t wrap your head around the fact that *even though they were uninformed, Kamala still failed to make the case to them." Again, unless you can wave a magic wand and cause uninformed voters to become informed, you’re just complaining about how reality works.
I never said it didn’t. What I said is that we have to be able to look at reality rationally and objectively without our preconceptions of what “should” be true getting in the way of things.
Also, I’m very confused about what you even mean by this or how it’s in any way a response to what I said.