Objection

joined 10 months ago
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Profitable for the rich. Defense for the rich. Both are points against.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago (2 children)
  • strong profitable defense contractors

Why the hell is this supposed to be a point in favor? I don't support the military-industrial complex, because I'm not a right-winger or a hawk.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago

I'm aware. I've never voted Republican in my life and don't intend to.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

You're trying to own me by intentionally misgendering some other random person. I hope you feel good about yourself. All you're doing is proving my assumption about you correct and vindicating me. You showed me everything I did here was 100% correct and justified and I would do it again.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

I’m also the guy who started all this.

Then edit your comment.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah, if your goal is just to wallow in misery and jack off about how right you (think you) are.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 days ago (3 children)

I’m not here to generate solutions, no idea why you keep asking for one.

Then your political position is worthless on it's face.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

An example of how she could’ve distinguished herself successfully…

I already did. She could've said that the administration wanted to do more about inflation but was held back by Republicans in Congress. She could've also pointed a finger at the rich and say that she would do more to confront them and stop price gouging.

I’m not trying to present a plan... God knows

Ok, well some of us actually do have ideas on how to win and haven't resigned ourselves to this defeatist martyrdom nonsense. So, like, maybe we should toss out your ideas at least for a while and give mine a try, since they involve a practical, coherent strategy adapted to the present situation which you have no answer for.

Like why on earth would I ever come around to your position if you can't even come up with a theoretical solution to the most important political questions of our time? If even you see your political project as a sinking ship, I'm sure as hell not coming aboard.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (5 children)

Should be easy, given that the US has a much stronger propaganda platform than Russia no? /s

Of course, the US government has a stronger propaganda platform in the US than Russia has in the US. Political parties are not the US government though, so it's not really relevant to how a political party can promote a message.

It’s almost as if despite this being shown across all media, a massive amount of voters were still manipulated by foreign & right-wing propaganda into ignoring/dismissing it.

Or they just didn't see it or pay attention or they didn't believe Trump would do it based on their own reasoning. People can believe different things from you without the need to insert a malicious actor to explain the disagreement.

But ok, your position is that nobody has both the willingness or capability to counter foreign/right-wing propaganda. So, as I've asked several times now, what is your solution to this situation? Because it seems like your solution is just to whine about it.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 days ago (3 children)

should be easy for you to give an actual example then.

An example of her... not doing that? I already did, when she was asked in an interview what she would do differently.

No, it was easy because people are dumbasses

Again, what's you're plan to account for people being dumbasses? If people are dumbasses, and you want politicians to keep running campaigns as if they weren't, then the inevitable result of what you want is that you lose.

basic facts like how the economy is performing and covid caused global inflation is “complex economic explanations” now?

Yes. How "the economy" is performing doesn't necessarily reflect on the average person's lived experiences as they watch prices go up and don't own enough stocks to really benefit from that. I don't recall Kamala ever actually bringing up covid as the reason for global inflation, which was probably smart doing so probably would've just increased covid skepticism, it would've played right into their hands. It's no surprise that the right was able to cut through that rhetoric by talking about the price of eggs and such.

I really feel like you're underestimating the challenge of communicating ideas to a broad population. Any message you want to communicate, you should imagine someone acting in complete bad faith trying to present you in the worst possible light and shouting over everything you say, because that's what cable news is, and it's also what political content on platforms like Twitch and YouTube are like, except then they don't even have to bring you on at all, they can go through clips and shit cherry-picking and taking things out of context. I can shout "YOU DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY BECAUSE THE BILLIONAIRES TOOK IT" and that's a lot more likely to get through than like, "You don't have any money, but you could have even less money, and actually if you compare our inflation levels to the global median you'll see that it was actually unavoidable," which can easily be distorted and shouted down.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 days ago (7 children)

These distinctions completely change the meaning. "Being able to predict" vs "being able to prove to a broad population" are completely different things. Of course it could be predicted, I certainly did, but that doesn't resolve the question of how you get the message out on a large scale and convince people of it. Even if you and I could see through it, he still had plausible deniability, making it not necessarily the most compelling angle to hit people with.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 days ago (5 children)

If you’re suggesting that she should’ve thrown Biden under the bus in her response, then it’s not absurd at all.

As I explained, she wouldn't have had to throw Biden under the bus, unless you consider "distinguishing herself from him in literally any way" to be "throwing him under the bus."

Ah yes, all of a sudden voters are aware of the facts “oBviOusLy” lmao. Let’s just pretend that whatever real or imagined failures of the Biden campaign weren’t successfully thrown onto her. zzzzzzzzzz

It was very easy to associate her with the real or imagined failures of the Biden campaign because she did nothing at all to distinguish herself from them.

Too many Americans are just too dumb and misinformed, that much is clear.

Almost as if complex economic explanations either go over people's heads, don't reach them, or they don't believe them. I wonder if there's some kind of simpler, but also true narrative that would acknowledge people's struggles while blaming them on people much more responsible for the situation than random minorities. Something like, blaming the rich. But no, can't do that, because Bernie Sanders is too tankie for you.

Again, what is your actual strategy for addressing the problem of uninformed voters? I just gave you mine, yours seems to be "lose, but it's ok so long as you were right."

 

https://youtu.be/VT6LFOIofRE

"We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings." - Ursula Le Guin

Lots of things are impossible until they happen and become inevitable. The human mind has a tendency to place things in that box that don't really belong there. We can see it in people's personal lives, "Oh, I could never possibly stand up to my parents!" and then they do, and the chips fall where they may. "I could never leave everything behind and move to another country/city" but you take a leap of faith and you make it work. "Oh, I could never become a soldier," but then you find yourself in the trenches and you become one. Humans are far more adaptable than we give ourselves credit for.

But the things that need to happen are things that we have determined rationally. The bias that exists in our minds when there is such a conflict is to ignore reason and evidence and think that we have to follow our self-imposed restraints and limitations, and if that's not enough, well, too bad, maybe it'll still be fine somehow. It is easier to simply pretend a physical problem doesn't exist then it is to confront a psychological barrier - but the physical problem remains whether we acknowledge it or shove it aside.

It is abundantly clear that there is a mismatch between what the US political reality is capable of delivering on and what actually needs to happen, on an increasingly large number of issues. Wealth inequality increases every year, and there is no path to stopping it. Every year we get closer to ecological collapse, heading towards tipping points that will spiral out of control. And of course, the military-industrial complex gets larger and larger, now fueling a genocide with overwhelming bipartisan support.

All of these things need to change, but it is also impossible for them to change. So we have no choice but to do the impossible (see the invisible, row, row, fight the powah). It is impossible that we could convince the democrats to change, they are too attached to their corporate donors. Too bad, we'll get them change anyway. It is impossible that we could build a third party, it isn't viable in FPTP. Too bad, we will build it and make it viable anyway. It is impossible that we could resist the strength of the military and police. It is impossible to organize a general strike. Boycotts can never work. The king would never allow us to have a constitution. Too bad.

The limits of existing political systems have been overcome in the past even when they seemed impossible, and the desperate need for change means that the limits of this one will be too. Shit is headed towards the fan, and things will change, for better or worse. The longer we wait, the more shit will build up. Only by finding a breach in "impossibility" can we start to address any of these problems.

Where will that breach be found? Who knows? All we can do is search for cracks and hit them as hard as we can until we find a way to break the limitations. We can discuss where to focus our efforts and that's a valid and important discussion to have. But we cannot allow the functions of the existing system to limit our efforts to break out of it. You cannot be so concerned about damaging an already sinking ship that you won't rip off a plank to hold on to.

I don't really care who you vote for or don't vote for. Follow your conscience. What's important is that you have your head in the game. What matters is recognizing the the things that what needs to happen is a function of immutable natural laws while what can happen is a function of mortal laws and conventional wisdom. When there is a mismatch, to uphold the ideas of "what can happen" is to reject that "what needs to happen" is actually real, which is no different from thinking you can change the laws of physics by passing a bill in the senate. The "reason" of conventional wisdom must be kicked to the curb in favor of actual reason that says things need to change, and that it's necessary to go beyond the impossible to make it happen.

view more: next ›