Ok, again, I mostly agree. Except Dems did go right this election. They had Republicans advocating for them. They lost. The most damning thing an election campaign can experience is losing. Dems may learn from that courting republican votes lose them elections. Their bank accounts will suggest they do the same thing again.
Secondly, I don’t see the “no genocide” vote being a left Vs right issue. There’s plenty of genocides to go around lefties like myself can “no true Scotsman” but history is riddled with genocides.
I don’t know how much I can tell you this, or how I can get it through to you. Blame the Leaders. We don’t blame Steve from the factory floor for Boeing’s doors falling off.
We know how people actually play the “ultimatum game” and it isn’t how game theory says they should. You have to give them enough for them to accept your offer. Offering a penny out of £100 makes them reject your offer even though you’d both be the better for it. That’s the world we live in.
Except Dems did go right this election. They had Republicans advocating for them.
Other than on trans issues, which they became suddenly very quiet about, and much more muted language on police brutality, which polls, unfortunately, turned largely against even from African-Americans after 2020 (copaganda runs strong in this fucking country), Dems largely did not move right from 2020 - the 2024 party platform includes stronger positions on climate change, environmental issues, and wealth redistribution.
Now, courting the right by trying to go for the whole “Country over party” aesthetic was absolutely idiotic and alienating - but it was largely not coupled with major policy changes.
Secondly, I don’t see the “no genocide” vote being a left Vs right issue. There’s plenty of genocides to go around lefties like myself can “no true Scotsman” but history is riddled with genocides.
In the US, the right-wing is overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian genocide, and centrists are overwhelmingly neutral on the matter of Palestinian genocide due to the massive and effective propaganda campaigns run by Israel and Israeli proxies to portray it as some, deep, complex issue and the IDF as “The most moral army in the world” (blech).
The no-Gaza-genocide vote was overwhelmingly left-wing. Or, rather, liberal and left. The point is that it was not evenly distributed across the political spectrum on the justification that genocide is generally viewed as bad; it was overwhelmingly concentrated on the more left leaning end of the spectrum on the justification that right-wing and centrist types tend to be sympathetic to Israel or hostile to Palestine.
I don’t know how much I can tell you this, or how I can get it through to you. Blame the Leaders. We don’t blame Steve from the factory floor for Boeing’s doors falling off.
Steve isn’t voting for safety and QA reductions in this scenario, though. We live (or lived) in a democracy, however flawed it may have been. We, the voters, were voting for safety and QA reductions.
The leaders are absolutely to blame. Every individual member of the DNC bears significantly more blame than any individual voter.
But that still doesn’t absolve voters of responsibility.
When the Nazis invaded Poland, the chief culprits were the ones giving the orders and making the plans - but the rank-and-file soldiers were also still guilty - and so were those who had quietly went along with the Nazi regime because opposing the Nazis was too much trouble.
That there are different levels of guilt does not absolve the least guilty of still being guilty.
We know how people actually play the “ultimatum game” and it isn’t how game theory says they should. You have to give them enough for them to accept your offer. Offering a penny out of £100 makes them reject your offer even though you’d both be the better for it. That’s the world we live in.
“Dems need to give more than an ultimatum” and “When push comes to shove, you have to make the less-bad choice” are not mutually exclusive options. At the infinite encouragement of purity politics, only an exact match with the voter’s desires would be ‘earning’ their vote - all else would be, legitimately, an ‘ultimatum’ forcing the voter to choose between compromise or giving up entirely. While “They disagree with one issue of mine, I can’t vote!” is a extreme example (though, unfortunately, one that does crop up), the principle that disagreement with the less-bad option should be grounds for rejection when the opposition is something as serious as literal fucking Nazis should be emphasized to be insufficient in scale of offense to be a moral reaction.
The abstainers were offered 10$ out of a million - a legitimate travesty and ghoulish behavior from the Dem party - and the abstainers chose to murder minorities instead - a much worse travesty. It’s not even something as ‘mild’ as “We both fail to gain” - my life may very well be forfeit these coming years - and the issue that many of these voters abstained on - Gaza - is set to become, and the opposition openly campaigned on making, significant worse and more murderous. And that’s an… already gruesome scenario. That’s not even getting into all the other factors that we will be suffering from under a Nazi regime.
As for blame. I agree that all involved share blame. And you, what culpabilty do you accept? (I’ve tried to word this civilly, it just doesn’t read as anything other than hostile, it isn’t meant as such, take the following as the bad orator that I am). Someone deriding purity politics wouldn’t suggest they’re pure in the situation. (Again, not intending to be a dick… I just can’t figure out a better way, seems like something to put into an llm and get it reworded… I dunno)
I’m suggesting the culpabilty you accept (I suggested at the time and now) was getting angry at the vegans, constantly hate posting against them instead of pushing leadership to plan with, for, or around them. In effect, I’m pointing out you punched down, not up. The vegans have less power than the animal rights group leaders, if you can’t make the leaders close the puppy farms, at least make them stop supporting puppy farms.
You can’t force voters to take blame for something they don’t want to (look what a bear of a time I’m having with you). Certainly not with memes. It takes an involved, and I hope like this one, empathetic conversation to do that. That’s just people… They don’t play the ultimatum game the way the game theorists said they should, that’s just people. some people have hard lines and genocide isn’t an unreasonable one, that’s just people.
Ok, again, I mostly agree. Except Dems did go right this election. They had Republicans advocating for them. They lost. The most damning thing an election campaign can experience is losing. Dems may learn from that courting republican votes lose them elections. Their bank accounts will suggest they do the same thing again.
Secondly, I don’t see the “no genocide” vote being a left Vs right issue. There’s plenty of genocides to go around lefties like myself can “no true Scotsman” but history is riddled with genocides.
I don’t know how much I can tell you this, or how I can get it through to you. Blame the Leaders. We don’t blame Steve from the factory floor for Boeing’s doors falling off.
We know how people actually play the “ultimatum game” and it isn’t how game theory says they should. You have to give them enough for them to accept your offer. Offering a penny out of £100 makes them reject your offer even though you’d both be the better for it. That’s the world we live in.
Other than on trans issues, which they became suddenly very quiet about, and much more muted language on police brutality, which polls, unfortunately, turned largely against even from African-Americans after 2020 (copaganda runs strong in this fucking country), Dems largely did not move right from 2020 - the 2024 party platform includes stronger positions on climate change, environmental issues, and wealth redistribution.
Now, courting the right by trying to go for the whole “Country over party” aesthetic was absolutely idiotic and alienating - but it was largely not coupled with major policy changes.
In the US, the right-wing is overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian genocide, and centrists are overwhelmingly neutral on the matter of Palestinian genocide due to the massive and effective propaganda campaigns run by Israel and Israeli proxies to portray it as some, deep, complex issue and the IDF as “The most moral army in the world” (blech).
The no-Gaza-genocide vote was overwhelmingly left-wing. Or, rather, liberal and left. The point is that it was not evenly distributed across the political spectrum on the justification that genocide is generally viewed as bad; it was overwhelmingly concentrated on the more left leaning end of the spectrum on the justification that right-wing and centrist types tend to be sympathetic to Israel or hostile to Palestine.
Steve isn’t voting for safety and QA reductions in this scenario, though. We live (or lived) in a democracy, however flawed it may have been. We, the voters, were voting for safety and QA reductions.
The leaders are absolutely to blame. Every individual member of the DNC bears significantly more blame than any individual voter.
But that still doesn’t absolve voters of responsibility.
When the Nazis invaded Poland, the chief culprits were the ones giving the orders and making the plans - but the rank-and-file soldiers were also still guilty - and so were those who had quietly went along with the Nazi regime because opposing the Nazis was too much trouble.
That there are different levels of guilt does not absolve the least guilty of still being guilty.
“Dems need to give more than an ultimatum” and “When push comes to shove, you have to make the less-bad choice” are not mutually exclusive options. At the infinite encouragement of purity politics, only an exact match with the voter’s desires would be ‘earning’ their vote - all else would be, legitimately, an ‘ultimatum’ forcing the voter to choose between compromise or giving up entirely. While “They disagree with one issue of mine, I can’t vote!” is a extreme example (though, unfortunately, one that does crop up), the principle that disagreement with the less-bad option should be grounds for rejection when the opposition is something as serious as literal fucking Nazis should be emphasized to be insufficient in scale of offense to be a moral reaction.
The abstainers were offered 10$ out of a million - a legitimate travesty and ghoulish behavior from the Dem party - and the abstainers chose to murder minorities instead - a much worse travesty. It’s not even something as ‘mild’ as “We both fail to gain” - my life may very well be forfeit these coming years - and the issue that many of these voters abstained on - Gaza - is set to become, and the opposition openly campaigned on making, significant worse and more murderous. And that’s an… already gruesome scenario. That’s not even getting into all the other factors that we will be suffering from under a Nazi regime.
As for blame. I agree that all involved share blame. And you, what culpabilty do you accept? (I’ve tried to word this civilly, it just doesn’t read as anything other than hostile, it isn’t meant as such, take the following as the bad orator that I am). Someone deriding purity politics wouldn’t suggest they’re pure in the situation. (Again, not intending to be a dick… I just can’t figure out a better way, seems like something to put into an llm and get it reworded… I dunno)
I’m suggesting the culpabilty you accept (I suggested at the time and now) was getting angry at the vegans, constantly hate posting against them instead of pushing leadership to plan with, for, or around them. In effect, I’m pointing out you punched down, not up. The vegans have less power than the animal rights group leaders, if you can’t make the leaders close the puppy farms, at least make them stop supporting puppy farms.
You can’t force voters to take blame for something they don’t want to (look what a bear of a time I’m having with you). Certainly not with memes. It takes an involved, and I hope like this one, empathetic conversation to do that. That’s just people… They don’t play the ultimatum game the way the game theorists said they should, that’s just people. some people have hard lines and genocide isn’t an unreasonable one, that’s just people.