Comment on Elections Have Consequences
danc4498@lemmy.world 1 day agoIf you have better things to do than source your claims, you probably have better things to do than to make them in the first place.
Nope, I enjoy having conversations IRL and online. When I have a different opinion I try not to say “cite your sources or your wrong”. A lot of times 2 people just have different opinions.
Fact is, I could very easily find 5-10 sources, but you would likely just find some nuance that proves your point while ignoring all the nuance that proves my point. It’s pointless.
We are just 2 regular ass people that disagree with each other. It’s a miracle we found each other!
The perception of “woke 1” being bad is something I never once disagreed with. What I disagreed with was whether that perception reflected the actual reality of what the Democrats said or did.
I’m not really sure the point you’re making. Are you saying that democrats, either as individual politicians or colllective groups that represented the party, were not the ones peddling ideas associated with “woke 1”. Are you saying the ideas of “woke 1” in its entirety weren’t actually bad, but it was perceived as bad unfairly? Or are you saying something else entirely?
Objection@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
Then talking is just as pointless! You’re assuming that I’d dismiss your sources without even giving me the chance to look at them in good faith. That itself is bad faith.
Yes, both of those things. The ideas that the democrats espoused during that time were not as radical as they were perceived. More radical ideas were espoused by random individuals who were nowhere near to the levers of power. Now, obviously, I can’t vouch for every idea on every 15 year-old’s Tumblr blog, but whether ideas that random people had were good or bad is beside the point.
“Woke” is a flexible word that can mean basically anything. If you want to define it such that it’s in line with the Democrat’s former policies, then fine, my position is that “woke” ideas were not that extreme or bad. If you want to define it as including more extreme positions, then my position is that the Democrats were not as woke as people think. But just alluding to these vague concepts makes it impossible to actually evaluate anything and ground it in facts. Which is why I’ve been trying to shift the focus onto specific policy positions.
Which brings me back to my question of whether there’s anything in Clinton’s 2016 platform regarding trans rights that goes beyond equal protections and privacy rights, the same sorts of things that El-Sayed supports. If you stop talking about these “perceptions” of vaguely defined terms, and look at specific policy positions, then we can have an actual, grounded conversation, that isn’t just your memory of a perception against my memory of a perception, which obviously goes nowhere.
danc4498@lemmy.world 1 day ago
We’re random people talking shit on the internet. Of course it’s pointless.
Objection@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
It’s possible to learn things or better understand how and why people think differently from you by talking, and putting it on the internet doesn’t somehow change that. So I don’t consider it pointless at all.
danc4498@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Me neither