but a lot of people here are frustrated by the indignity of having to appeal to people who don't already accept the fundamental equivalance of homosexuality and heterosexuality. and the tone is "well we need to kick more ass and stick it to these fuckers"
but we don't! "those fuckers" are the great majority of this country. a large chunk of people who support gay marriage don't really like homosexuality but are also uncomfortable with overtly discriminating against gays. they tolerate homosexuality, but fall short of really accepting it. we need to appeal to these sorts of persuadable people if we're ever going to get anything done.
Yeah mostly this.
Of the 75% or so of the country that isn't liberal, probably one-third of that would never, ever vote Democrat. It's too much of an identity issue, at best they simply won't vote.
This still leaves about 50% of the US population to contend with. For some reason though, Democrats tend to just dismiss everyone who isn't already liberal as a hopeless lost cause.
Will I think with the gay marriage thing you're assuming people espouse opinions that they don't have again.
There is virtually no voice for the polyamorous and transgender in the media. Maybe here on D&D it feel like there is, but that's not the case for 99.9% of society.
but a lot of people here are frustrated by the indignity of having to appeal to people who don't already accept the fundamental equivalance of homosexuality and heterosexuality. and the tone is "well we need to kick more ass and stick it to these fuckers"
At least what I've been arguing isn't this. Although I think that discontent is super understandable and perfectly natural, and a sign that you have some moral backbone.
But I think the more important point is do you say "hey, most people don't understand this fundamental equivalence, let's persuade them by making a bold, principled case that is framed in our own values of empathy and fairness as progressives" or do you say "hey I need to win this election, how can I quickly try to distance myself from the gay rights movement and show just how much I am grossed out by dude-fucking too?"
Or, the not-as-bad-as-that but also crappy option: "hey, we need to persuade these people, so I'll try to convince them by pandering to their own backwards values of tradition and a white-straight-male hierarchy, by trying to argue about how the Bible maybe says being gay is sort of OK, depending on how you read it?"
Only the first option there is viable. And I think a big part of the anger and discontent isn't so much "let me shove my politidick down these ignorant rednecks' throats" as it is "why can't we mount an effective goddamn cultural movement that gets people to value the shit I value?" and that fundamental frustration can make people confused and hostile.
Will I think with the gay marriage thing you're assuming people espouse opinions that they don't have again.
There is virtually no voice for the polyamorous and transgender in the media. Maybe here on D&D it feel like there is, but that's not the case for 99.9% of society.
The point was its not a good idea to tie something we can win on like gay marriage to something that doesn't have a snow balls chance in hell like polyamorous relationships.
Agreed, but the way to do it I would argue is by taking a forceful high road. You can be positive and still control the message, it got Obama in office. We don't need to sink to their level to get the legislation we want, we just need to grow a spine and actually fight for it.
The Republicans have such a bullshit message it shouldn't be hard for democrats to frame their arguments in a way that reaches voters, but instead we have people like Tim Kaine whining about giving the Republicans "the keys back". That shit doesn't work, you need to be pounding the Republicans on what you have done and what you want to still do.
EDIT: Alot of Clinton's skill as a politician came from being a governor in a state where the governor had little actual power. He learned how to play ball.
Lets not forget the context of the '08 election. Yes Obama ran on a positive message but we were also in a really shitty place as a country. Running on a positive message right now will probably not be as useful as it was then. We can talk about all the things that have been accomplished but those haven't made a noticeable difference to the average person who has lost their job, had the value of their home drop, or had their stock portfolio drop by 30+%. I think the best we could do is talk about the other things we want to get done and how it will help the average person.
Having said that I'm also fine with calling the republicans out on their bullshit. I don't think we have to do one or the other.
Edit: We may have kept people's stock portfolios to only dropping 30% rather than 50% but that isn't blatantly obvious. Also credit card companies have already started to try and circumvent some of the protections we put in the credit card bill.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Will I think with the gay marriage thing you're assuming people espouse opinions that they don't have again.
There is virtually no voice for the polyamorous and transgender in the media. Maybe here on D&D it feel like there is, but that's not the case for 99.9% of society.
The point was its not a good idea to tie something we can win on like gay marriage to something that doesn't have a snow balls chance in hell like polyamorous relationships.
Yeah and my point is NOBODY DOES THIS so it's a silly strawman. Except for maybe Feral, but hey, Feral.
Lets not forget the context of the '08 election. Yes Obama ran on a positive message but we were also in a really shitty place as a country. Running on a positive message right now will probably not be as useful as it was then.
You think we're in much better a position as a country now?
I think part of the aptness of Styrofoam's point is this notion that we somehow never pursue the middle. And as you yourself pointed out, we're actually good at incorporating "polite" into our spectrum of arguments. ALL gay marriage movements are heteronormative. This sort of mistaken belief that most gay advocates persuade undecideds by fucking one another up the ass on the lawns of a church on Sunday while screaming "LOOK AT IT, BITCH! LOOK AT IT!" is just a right-wing bogeyman.
Well, they don't
but a lot of people here are frustrated by the indignity of having to appeal to people who don't already accept the fundamental equivalance of homosexuality and heterosexuality. and the tone is "well we need to kick more ass and stick it to these fuckers"
It is, admittedly, easy to hate, particularly when your opponents have made it clear that they hate you. By saying that God is going to damn you to the pits of fire, in the case of gay marriage. Or -- and here's another random example -- printing large rally signs with your face photo-shopped to look like an amalgamation between Heath Ledger's portrayal of The Joker and the ole' chestnut Adolf Hitler.
And it is important to be able to draw a distinction between "winning" and "fucking over the other side." And it's likewise important to be able to calmly accept the fact that you will never win any issue with 100% support or 100% of the vote share. People who sincerely disagree with the sentiment that homosexuals and heterosexuals deserve equal rights are never going to vote for you. You can waste your time yelling at them and "stick it to those fuckers," or you can identify them as a non-persuadable voter, politely say goodbye, and start talking to the next voter. Sticking it to the fuckers is emotionally satisfying, but devoting more time to identifying those people who believe in a similar-enough cognitive framework that they can be persuaded to see the issue from your side is always the more strategically-viable path. But there isn't some sort of mythical better "third way" where you go along to get along -- at least not one where you can have any expectation at all of winning any ground on your issue or campaign. Which is why it's a fool's errand to abandon your own cognitive framework in the hopes that adopting your opponent's will make your ideas seem more-palatable.
edit: I think maybe as long as Fartacus is online, I'll just stop taking the time to type these out and let him/her handle all responses, since we keep quoting the same parts of the same posts and replying with more or less the same answers. Also we apparently have more or less the same background and really I'm not sure there's any real reason for there to be two of us on here.
SammyF on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Will I think with the gay marriage thing you're assuming people espouse opinions that they don't have again.
There is virtually no voice for the polyamorous and transgender in the media. Maybe here on D&D it feel like there is, but that's not the case for 99.9% of society.
yeah you are probably right. i probably get a biased view of what "the left" looks like from this board
i mean seriously, i live in cambridge, massachusetts and my friends are mostly young liberals. if you asked most people, that is essentially ground zero for hair-on-fire radical liberalism. and i'm generally regarded as "the judgemental left-wing hard-liner" of my social groups
and yet i am routinely shocked by the things that pass without dissent on this board.
Will I think with the gay marriage thing you're assuming people espouse opinions that they don't have again.
There is virtually no voice for the polyamorous and transgender in the media. Maybe here on D&D it feel like there is, but that's not the case for 99.9% of society.
yeah you are probably right. i probably get a biased view of what "the left" looks like from this board
i mean seriously, i live in cambridge, massachusetts and my friends are mostly young liberals. if you asked most people, that is essentially ground zero for hair-on-fire radical liberalism. and i'm generally regarded as "the judgemental left-wing hard-liner" of my social groups
and yet i am routinely shocked by the things that pass without dissent on this board.
That has more to do with this board being composed of young nerds than any sort of right-left dichotomy. The real-world left wing is generally VERY concerned with how society operates and how people relate to one another on a very basic level.
Will I think with the gay marriage thing you're assuming people espouse opinions that they don't have again.
There is virtually no voice for the polyamorous and transgender in the media. Maybe here on D&D it feel like there is, but that's not the case for 99.9% of society.
yeah you are probably right. i probably get a biased view of what "the left" looks like from this board
i mean seriously, i live in cambridge, massachusetts and my friends are mostly young liberals. if you asked most people, that is essentially ground zero for hair-on-fire radical liberalism. and i'm generally regarded as "the judgemental left-wing hard-liner" of my social groups
and yet i am routinely shocked by the things that pass without dissent on this board.
Huh. I'd have thought your experience as a moderator would have inured you to it, kind of like career homicide detectives who eventually become more comfortable with the dead than they are with the living.
Have you considered trying alcoholism yet?
SammyF on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
At least what I've been arguing isn't this. Although I think that discontent is super understandable and perfectly natural, and a sign that you have some moral backbone.
But I think the more important point is do you say "hey, most people don't understand this fundamental equivalence, let's persuade them by making a bold, principled case that is framed in our own values of empathy and fairness as progressives" or do you say "hey I need to win this election, how can I quickly try to distance myself from the gay rights movement and show just how much I am grossed out by dude-fucking too?"
Or, the not-as-bad-as-that but also crappy option: "hey, we need to persuade these people, so I'll try to convince them by pandering to their own backwards values of tradition and a white-straight-male hierarchy, by trying to argue about how the Bible maybe says being gay is sort of OK, depending on how you read it?"
Only the first option there is viable. And I think a big part of the anger and discontent isn't so much "let me shove my politidick down these ignorant rednecks' throats" as it is "why can't we mount an effective goddamn cultural movement that gets people to value the shit I value?" and that fundamental frustration can make people confused and hostile.
fundamentally, it's about making the "them" into "us" i think.
i think that the framing of fairness and tolerance is an important aspect to the argument, but that the really central and persuasive point - at least to the persuadables - is the message that gay people are pretty much like everyone else.
that is a very very strongly emotional and fundamentally compelling place to be. but it's also incredibly sensitive in trying to get there. and the smart political operatives know this. it's why smiling clean-cut couples with a dog and a well-kept house busying themselves planting a tree or something are ubiquitous on the "pro" side of these campaigns.
and it's why videos of mostly-naked screaming homos on dick floats get trotted out by the right wing everytime gay marriage gets close.
i guess i see it as having to do with salesmanship. you and i seem to agree on this, and it runs across pretty much every political issue. it just feels like a lot of hard-liners feel like necessary salesmanship and sometimes-necessary compromise is "selling out." it's frustrating.
Irond Will on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Huh. I'd have thought your experience as a moderator would have inured you to it, kind of like career homicide detectives who eventually become more comfortable with the dead than they are with the living.
Have you considered trying alcoholism yet?
it's more like arsenic than strychnine
instead of building a tolerance, it's just slowly accumulated and poisoned my blood.
Huh. I'd have thought your experience as a moderator would have inured you to it, kind of like career homicide detectives who eventually become more comfortable with the dead than they are with the living.
Have you considered trying alcoholism yet?
it's more like arsenic than strychnine
instead of building a tolerance, it's just slowly accumulated and poisoned my blood.
You...you should request a transfer to Critical Failures or something.
Lets not forget the context of the '08 election. Yes Obama ran on a positive message but we were also in a really shitty place as a country. Running on a positive message right now will probably not be as useful as it was then.
You think we're in much better a position as a country now?
Well back then we could point the finger at the republicans and say "look they did a shitty job I can do better". We can't exactly do that this time. "We have control of both houses and the presidency for the last two years, but it takes a long time to fix things" is not a persuasive argument.
Edit: I understand this is the case and you understand it but some automotive factory worker getting overpaid to put in the same 6 bolts over and over again who can't find work at the same ridiculous pay rate anymore is not going to understand that. ramble ramble
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Huh. I'd have thought your experience as a moderator would have inured you to it, kind of like career homicide detectives who eventually become more comfortable with the dead than they are with the living.
Have you considered trying alcoholism yet?
it's more like arsenic than strychnine
instead of building a tolerance, it's just slowly accumulated and poisoned my blood.
You...you should request a transfer to Critical Failures or something.
Lets not forget the context of the '08 election. Yes Obama ran on a positive message but we were also in a really shitty place as a country. Running on a positive message right now will probably not be as useful as it was then.
You think we're in much better a position as a country now?
Well back then we could point the finger at the republicans and say "look they did a shitty job I can do better". We can't exactly do that this time. "We have control of both houses and the presidency for the last two years, but it takes a long time to fix things" is not a persuasive argument.
Ah, so we were in a much better position as democrats. That I won't argue.
Styrofoam Sammich on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Lets not forget the context of the '08 election. Yes Obama ran on a positive message but we were also in a really shitty place as a country. Running on a positive message right now will probably not be as useful as it was then.
You think we're in much better a position as a country now?
Well back then we could point the finger at the republicans and say "look they did a shitty job I can do better". We can't exactly do that this time. "We have control of both houses and the presidency for the last two years, but it takes a long time to fix things" is not a persuasive argument.
it's true
we're like "but we only have 60 votes in the senate and some of them are kinda dickheads"
whereas the republicans fucking steamrolled us with 50 votes.
Lets not forget the context of the '08 election. Yes Obama ran on a positive message but we were also in a really shitty place as a country. Running on a positive message right now will probably not be as useful as it was then.
You think we're in much better a position as a country now?
Well back then we could point the finger at the republicans and say "look they did a shitty job I can do better". We can't exactly do that this time. "We have control of both houses and the presidency for the last two years, but it takes a long time to fix things" is not a persuasive argument.
Ah, so we were in a much better position as democrats. That I won't argue.
Actually I'm saying we are in a worse position because we have had power for 2-4 years and haven't done the magic that the public was expecting. So now it is harder to run on a positive message when people don't think things are better than 2 years ago AND we were the ones in power this time.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
fundamentally, it's about making the "them" into "us" i think.
Well, while that would be nice, for me it's more about making sure that the people in the middle, who are sympathetic to both worldviews, and maybe employ both in their daily lives (like the Reagan Democrats in Michigan who understood progressive values in their union, but understood conservative values in their homes), come down on our side.
And that can't happen unless you give them a clear side to come down on.
i think that the framing of fairness and tolerance is an important aspect to the argument, but that the really central and persuasive point - at least to the persuadables - is the message that gay people are pretty much like everyone else.
Well, folks like George Lakoff would argue that empathy is one of the cardinal progressive values. So I agree.
that is a very very strongly emotional and fundamentally compelling place to be. but it's also incredibly sensitive in trying to get there. and the smart political operatives know this. it's why smiling clean-cut couples with a dog and a well-kept house busying themselves planting a tree or something are ubiquitous on the "pro" side of these campaigns.
and it's why videos of mostly-naked screaming homos on dick floats get trotted out by the right wing everytime gay marriage gets close.
Right.
i guess i see it as having to do with salesmanship. you and i seem to agree on this, and it runs across pretty much every political issue. it just feels like a lot of hard-liners feel like necessary salesmanship and sometimes-necessary compromise is "selling out." it's frustrating.
Yeah but it's important to distinguish between sometimes-necessary compromise and unnecessary compromise. And it's important to distinguish salesmanship from cowardice and ineptitude.
Frankly, I think if there had been some real, competent salesmanship from this administration and even moreso from the Senate over the last two years, even with the exact same legislative record, Democrats would be far more enthusiastic about this cycle, and swing-voters would have an emotional foothold for understanding and approving of the Democratic legislative agenda.
It's like the entire last two years our Caucus has believed the Republican line that people don't want Dem policies and we just need to jam through whatever we can get before we all get voted out in two years. And that became a goddamn self-fulfilling prophecy.
You make the perfect example. You're condescending and dismissive of discussions that agree with the result but differ on the specifics. Let's not derail this into another policy debate, because that's not the point of this thread. The point is that your response is indicative of the "strategic incompetence" of the party -- it does nothing to further dialog or move your position forward. If this is how you treat someone who actually agrees with gay marriage, how do you think this helps your position with those who are on the fence?
No mrdobalina. You are the perfect example. You are here proclaiming chocolate to be best and we are here saying that no, we want freedom and choice.
We aren't here to convince you, we are here to explain how we can convince other people.
All you are doing is trying to get in the way, to get us to frame arguments in the manner that is Republican ground, such that we lose.
Goumindong on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Yeah but it's important to distinguish between sometimes-necessary compromise and unnecessary compromise. And it's important to distinguish salesmanship from cowardice and ineptitude.
Frankly, I think if there had been some real, competent salesmanship from this administration and even moreso from the Senate over the last two years, even with the exact same legislative record, Democrats would be far more enthusiastic about this cycle, and swing-voters would have an emotional foothold for understanding and approving of the Democratic legislative agenda.
It's like the entire last two years our Caucus has believed the Republican line that people don't want Dem policies and we just need to jam through whatever we can get before we all get voted out in two years. And that became a goddamn self-fulfilling prophecy.
we've had a couple of years of traditional democratic cowardice and ineptitude and intrasigence.
it's not like fucking max baucus or whoever else was even playing smart electoral politics. it's just the traditional democratic logrolling that he felt entitled to be the guy that had to be paid off. and because the senate leadership is so fucking spineless, they couldn't bring themselves to either quietly pay him off or else beat the shit out of him in the locker room.
it's hard to develop a coherent message in the midst of such a terribly fractuous party. everyone wants a slice and no one is willing to suck it up and play along.
it's not even really that health care reform was improperly framed by the left. it's just that it was framed in a thousand different ways and therefore not at all. even when obama was stumping for it, it was "well, whatever it might turn out to be it'll probably be better than what we have"
it was just stupid. the republicans wouldn't have let that happen.
The movement on gay rights has only been possible because that's one the media hasn't beat back with their rhetoric sticks, and has overwhelming public support.
Other issues like health care may be winnable with simple logic, but as Jon Stewart demonstrated, the Democrats lack the ability to articulate simple logic.
Going into a rehearsed 3 page point by point analysis of what healthcare has done so far is bad. More important than anything in this day and age, you need something memorable and to the point, and avoid exact numbers when possible. Taliban Dan works to me because that ad will make people remember "She should submit to me". I would wager dollars to donuts it will increase his numbers with female voters.
In addition, and this is just my opinion mind you, numbers turn people off, but every time I listen to the democrats I hear "97% this" or "524,000,000" that or whatever. It's okay to say "Small business owners ARE NOT GOING TO GET A TAX INCREASE!", even if 3% of "small businesses" will.
If you are going to use numbers, saying "half a billion!" or "a trillion!" is far better than giving an exact figure. If you're going to give a percent, use a percent ending in a zero
The movement on gay rights has only been possible because that's one the media hasn't beat back with their rhetoric sticks, and has overwhelming public support.
Other issues like health care may be winnable with simple logic, but as Jon Stewart demonstrated, the Democrats lack the ability to articulate simple logic.
Going into a rehearsed 3 page point by point analysis of what healthcare has done so far is bad. More important than anything in this day and age, you need something memorable and repeatable, and avoid exact numbers when possible.
Numbers turn people off, but every time I listen to the democrats I hear "97% this" or "500,000,000" that or whatever. It's okay to say "Small business owners ARE NOT GOING TO GET A TAX INCREASE!", even if 3% of "small businesses" will.
Just keep pounding things like the change to preexisting conditions and spending caps. The public loves those parts of the bill.
The movement on gay rights has only been possible because that's one the media hasn't beat back with their rhetoric sticks, and has overwhelming public support.
Other issues like health care may be winnable with simple logic, but as Jon Stewart demonstrated, the Democrats lack the ability to articulate simple logic.
Going into a rehearsed 3 page point by point analysis of what healthcare has done so far is bad. More important than anything in this day and age, you need something memorable and repeatable, and avoid exact numbers when possible.
Numbers turn people off, but every time I listen to the democrats I hear "97% this" or "500,000,000" that or whatever. It's okay to say "Small business owners ARE NOT GOING TO GET A TAX INCREASE!", even if 3% of "small businesses" will.
Just keep pounding things like the change to preexisting conditions and spending caps. The public loves those parts of the bill.
Yes, yes, yes, this.
I would almost have preferred the dems not even talking about the taxes or whatever. Keep hammering the preexisting conditions. People haven't actually seen that go into effect yet, explain why quickly and cleanly - it takes time to get something this large going, etc.
we've had a couple of years of traditional democratic cowardice and ineptitude and intrasigence.
it's not like fucking max baucus or whoever else was even playing smart electoral politics. it's just the traditional democratic logrolling that he felt entitled to be the guy that had to be paid off. and because the senate leadership is so fucking spineless, they couldn't bring themselves to either quietly pay him off or else beat the shit out of him in the locker room.
it's hard to develop a coherent message in the midst of such a terribly fractuous party. everyone wants a slice and no one is willing to suck it up and play along.
it's not even really that health care reform was improperly framed by the left. it's just that it was framed in a thousand different ways and therefore not at all. even when obama was stumping for it, it was "well, whatever it might turn out to be it'll probably be better than what we have"
it was just stupid. the republicans wouldn't have let that happen.
I largely agree with this. The one bone I want to pick is that while I agree that Max Baucus wasn't playing smart electoral politics, I think many similar Senators and Representatives (if maybe not him specifically) think that those sort of actions are smart politics. That running from the party and undermining the message and taking corporate money is the smart way to run things.
Of course, corporations tend to be fair-weather friends that will happily fund a Republican if they can find one with a chance to beat you, and running from the party and undermining the message and agenda can result in a toxic national environment that no amount of corporate slush money will save you from. And hell, many of them do it even without taking big paychecks as a result, which is even dumber.
Here are some good examples of this particular brand of thinking:
This is not a compelling ad. If you're a Democrat, and you're basically admitting in your ads that the Democratic agenda is crap, and the leadership is wrong, then what reason are you giving people to support a Democrat? Why not just vote in a full goddamn Republican and stop pussyfooting around?
Now, Chet Edwards is likely fucked no matter what ads he tries to run this cycle, but it's this sort of thinking that pervaded the last two years that created the national atmosphere that will get him kicked out of his seat. And he certainly did his part to contribute to it.
2) Can you tell me, without google or wiki, what the overton window is and why the concept is applicable to this conversation?
No. Can you tell me, without google or wiki, what the Library of Babel is and why it is applicable to this conversation? Well I guess we're both bad people then. People having a discussion in good faith make their argument, explain the parts of it of which the other side may be unaware, then listen to the response. They do not claim immediate superiority, quote back the other person only adding "Are you kidding?!", and introduce oblique references saying "do you know what that is?". Guess which one you are.
I've lost interest - bye!
This will come days late (from Page 10), but I've been enjoying catching up on this thread so far...
It's a shame you quit, because you make the most sense in this thread so far and GoddamitImThick's playing of some kind of concern troll shows he'd make a really good Republican. He did reel you in pretty well with his "How can you possibly say that 1+1=2" act.
At least I hope it was an act. :?
Actually maybe something can be learnt from his small-minded obstructionism and the results used? Like how a resistance to CowPox protects against Smallpox?
I'm hoping you come back and I've got...oh about 20 more pages to see if you do...
McGuffin on
0
Options
sportzboytjwsqueeeeeezzeeeesome more tax breaks outRegistered Userregular
Lets not forget the context of the '08 election. Yes Obama ran on a positive message but we were also in a really shitty place as a country. Running on a positive message right now will probably not be as useful as it was then.
You think we're in much better a position as a country now?
Well back then we could point the finger at the republicans and say "look they did a shitty job I can do better". We can't exactly do that this time. "We have control of both houses and the presidency for the last two years, but it takes a long time to fix things" is not a persuasive argument.
it's true
we're like "but we only have 60 votes in the senate and some of them are kinda dickheads"
whereas the republicans fucking steamrolled us with 50 votes.
I consider myself to be right-leaning. I mean, I hate o'reilly, but the 2k4 election was a pick-your-poison to me type of person.
So, uh, how the hell did democrats devolve into infighting and "wahh but I want this in the health care bill" when if it was the republicans they would have been doing insane adds for how it would save america and stuff? I get that not everything the right does is right, but they sure band together well...
sportzboytjw on
Walkerdog on MTGO
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
Why did that happen? See the title of this thread. Congressional Democrats are, by and large, incompetent chucklefucks when it comes to creating and pushing narrative, whether with policy/legislation or campaigning.
This will come days late (from Page 10), but I've been enjoying catching up on this thread so far...
It's a shame you quit, because you make the most sense in this thread so far and GoddamitImThick's playing of some kind of concern troll shows he'd make a really good Republican. He did reel you in pretty well with his "How can you possibly say that 1+1=2" act.
This is a useful example of what not to do in this thread.
You make the perfect example. You're condescending and dismissive of discussions that agree with the result but differ on the specifics. Let's not derail this into another policy debate, because that's not the point of this thread. The point is that your response is indicative of the "strategic incompetence" of the party -- it does nothing to further dialog or move your position forward. If this is how you treat someone who actually agrees with gay marriage, how do you think this helps your position with those who are on the fence?
No mrdobalina. You are the perfect example. You are here proclaiming chocolate to be best and we are here saying that no, we want freedom and choice.
We aren't here to convince you, we are here to explain how we can convince other people.
All you are doing is trying to get in the way, to get us to frame arguments in the manner that is Republican ground, such that we lose.
Ah yes, my one man campaign to force lefties to use Republi-speak in order to force electoral losses and...profit?
Note that I was clear that this was irrespective of my beliefs is your positions, which I think are wrongheaded and insane in many respects, but simply about your messaging. I don't expect you to try to convince me, no matter how you frame it.
Ah yes, my one man campaign to force lefties to use Republi-speak in order to force electoral losses and...profit?
One of the biggest complaints about democrats is that many of them behave in a craven manner, backing down and bending over for their aggressive opponents. You yourself used the term "Milquetoast." And then you suggest that they back down and bend over more.
Ah yes, my one man campaign to force lefties to use Republi-speak in order to force electoral losses and...profit?
One of the biggest complaints about democrats is that many of them behave in a craven manner, backing down and bending over for their aggressive opponents. You yourself used the term "Milquetoast." And then you suggest that they back down and bend over more.
The take away would be that your party has different levels of ineffectuality. I called it milquetoast because seriously, you guys should be hitting gay marriage from a dozen angles, not just screaming the same message repeatedly.
I've convinced people to support gay marriage - conservative people, becuase my message is fundamentally different that what you're peddling. No half-naked men on dick floats as Irondwill called it, and no attempts at parity with minority civil rights.
This happens to be one area we both fundamentally agree upon, but your (read: party's) message is inadequate. The Dems could kill in this area, not just gain ground inch by inch like they have. And they could do it without resorting to a court imposition.
You know, the last I heard, the judiciary was a coequal branch of the government, and its actions were just as legitimate as those of the executive and legislative. 'Resorting' to the courts is like 'resorting' to the Congress or state assembly.
You know, the last I heard, the judiciary was a coequal branch of the government, and its actions were just as legitimate as those of the executive and legislative. 'Resorting' to the courts is like 'resorting' to the Congress or state assembly.
Techically, yes. Emotionally and from a perspective of mind-share and acceptance? Not so much.
Take Gore v Bush for example. Many on the left decried that the election was stolen, despite the decision being made a "coequal branch of the government". The victory is more absolute and infinitely more meaningful when it's made by the people, not made for the people.
You know, the last I heard, the judiciary was a coequal branch of the government, and its actions were just as legitimate as those of the executive and legislative. 'Resorting' to the courts is like 'resorting' to the Congress or state assembly.
Techically, yes. Emotionally and from a perspective of mind-share and acceptance? Not so much.
Take Gore v Bush for example. Many on the left decried that the election was stolen, despite the decision being made a "coequal branch of the government". The victory is more absolute and infinitely more meaningful when it's made by the people, not made for the people.
Depends if there's a fundamental minority right involved.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Posts
That was an excellent post.
Yeah mostly this.
Of the 75% or so of the country that isn't liberal, probably one-third of that would never, ever vote Democrat. It's too much of an identity issue, at best they simply won't vote.
This still leaves about 50% of the US population to contend with. For some reason though, Democrats tend to just dismiss everyone who isn't already liberal as a hopeless lost cause.
There is virtually no voice for the polyamorous and transgender in the media. Maybe here on D&D it feel like there is, but that's not the case for 99.9% of society.
At least what I've been arguing isn't this. Although I think that discontent is super understandable and perfectly natural, and a sign that you have some moral backbone.
But I think the more important point is do you say "hey, most people don't understand this fundamental equivalence, let's persuade them by making a bold, principled case that is framed in our own values of empathy and fairness as progressives" or do you say "hey I need to win this election, how can I quickly try to distance myself from the gay rights movement and show just how much I am grossed out by dude-fucking too?"
Or, the not-as-bad-as-that but also crappy option: "hey, we need to persuade these people, so I'll try to convince them by pandering to their own backwards values of tradition and a white-straight-male hierarchy, by trying to argue about how the Bible maybe says being gay is sort of OK, depending on how you read it?"
Only the first option there is viable. And I think a big part of the anger and discontent isn't so much "let me shove my politidick down these ignorant rednecks' throats" as it is "why can't we mount an effective goddamn cultural movement that gets people to value the shit I value?" and that fundamental frustration can make people confused and hostile.
The point was its not a good idea to tie something we can win on like gay marriage to something that doesn't have a snow balls chance in hell like polyamorous relationships.
Lets not forget the context of the '08 election. Yes Obama ran on a positive message but we were also in a really shitty place as a country. Running on a positive message right now will probably not be as useful as it was then. We can talk about all the things that have been accomplished but those haven't made a noticeable difference to the average person who has lost their job, had the value of their home drop, or had their stock portfolio drop by 30+%. I think the best we could do is talk about the other things we want to get done and how it will help the average person.
Having said that I'm also fine with calling the republicans out on their bullshit. I don't think we have to do one or the other.
Edit: We may have kept people's stock portfolios to only dropping 30% rather than 50% but that isn't blatantly obvious. Also credit card companies have already started to try and circumvent some of the protections we put in the credit card bill.
Yeah and my point is NOBODY DOES THIS so it's a silly strawman. Except for maybe Feral, but hey, Feral.
You think we're in much better a position as a country now?
It is, admittedly, easy to hate, particularly when your opponents have made it clear that they hate you. By saying that God is going to damn you to the pits of fire, in the case of gay marriage. Or -- and here's another random example -- printing large rally signs with your face photo-shopped to look like an amalgamation between Heath Ledger's portrayal of The Joker and the ole' chestnut Adolf Hitler.
And it is important to be able to draw a distinction between "winning" and "fucking over the other side." And it's likewise important to be able to calmly accept the fact that you will never win any issue with 100% support or 100% of the vote share. People who sincerely disagree with the sentiment that homosexuals and heterosexuals deserve equal rights are never going to vote for you. You can waste your time yelling at them and "stick it to those fuckers," or you can identify them as a non-persuadable voter, politely say goodbye, and start talking to the next voter. Sticking it to the fuckers is emotionally satisfying, but devoting more time to identifying those people who believe in a similar-enough cognitive framework that they can be persuaded to see the issue from your side is always the more strategically-viable path. But there isn't some sort of mythical better "third way" where you go along to get along -- at least not one where you can have any expectation at all of winning any ground on your issue or campaign. Which is why it's a fool's errand to abandon your own cognitive framework in the hopes that adopting your opponent's will make your ideas seem more-palatable.
edit: I think maybe as long as Fartacus is online, I'll just stop taking the time to type these out and let him/her handle all responses, since we keep quoting the same parts of the same posts and replying with more or less the same answers. Also we apparently have more or less the same background and really I'm not sure there's any real reason for there to be two of us on here.
yeah you are probably right. i probably get a biased view of what "the left" looks like from this board
i mean seriously, i live in cambridge, massachusetts and my friends are mostly young liberals. if you asked most people, that is essentially ground zero for hair-on-fire radical liberalism. and i'm generally regarded as "the judgemental left-wing hard-liner" of my social groups
and yet i am routinely shocked by the things that pass without dissent on this board.
like cat ears.
That has more to do with this board being composed of young nerds than any sort of right-left dichotomy. The real-world left wing is generally VERY concerned with how society operates and how people relate to one another on a very basic level.
Huh. I'd have thought your experience as a moderator would have inured you to it, kind of like career homicide detectives who eventually become more comfortable with the dead than they are with the living.
Have you considered trying alcoholism yet?
fundamentally, it's about making the "them" into "us" i think.
i think that the framing of fairness and tolerance is an important aspect to the argument, but that the really central and persuasive point - at least to the persuadables - is the message that gay people are pretty much like everyone else.
that is a very very strongly emotional and fundamentally compelling place to be. but it's also incredibly sensitive in trying to get there. and the smart political operatives know this. it's why smiling clean-cut couples with a dog and a well-kept house busying themselves planting a tree or something are ubiquitous on the "pro" side of these campaigns.
and it's why videos of mostly-naked screaming homos on dick floats get trotted out by the right wing everytime gay marriage gets close.
i guess i see it as having to do with salesmanship. you and i seem to agree on this, and it runs across pretty much every political issue. it just feels like a lot of hard-liners feel like necessary salesmanship and sometimes-necessary compromise is "selling out." it's frustrating.
it's more like arsenic than strychnine
instead of building a tolerance, it's just slowly accumulated and poisoned my blood.
You...you should request a transfer to Critical Failures or something.
Well back then we could point the finger at the republicans and say "look they did a shitty job I can do better". We can't exactly do that this time. "We have control of both houses and the presidency for the last two years, but it takes a long time to fix things" is not a persuasive argument.
Edit: I understand this is the case and you understand it but some automotive factory worker getting overpaid to put in the same 6 bolts over and over again who can't find work at the same ridiculous pay rate anymore is not going to understand that. ramble ramble
and rub shoulders with those smelly nerds?!
Ah, so we were in a much better position as democrats. That I won't argue.
it's true
we're like "but we only have 60 votes in the senate and some of them are kinda dickheads"
whereas the republicans fucking steamrolled us with 50 votes.
Actually I'm saying we are in a worse position because we have had power for 2-4 years and haven't done the magic that the public was expecting. So now it is harder to run on a positive message when people don't think things are better than 2 years ago AND we were the ones in power this time.
Well, while that would be nice, for me it's more about making sure that the people in the middle, who are sympathetic to both worldviews, and maybe employ both in their daily lives (like the Reagan Democrats in Michigan who understood progressive values in their union, but understood conservative values in their homes), come down on our side.
And that can't happen unless you give them a clear side to come down on.
Well, folks like George Lakoff would argue that empathy is one of the cardinal progressive values. So I agree.
Right.
Yeah but it's important to distinguish between sometimes-necessary compromise and unnecessary compromise. And it's important to distinguish salesmanship from cowardice and ineptitude.
Frankly, I think if there had been some real, competent salesmanship from this administration and even moreso from the Senate over the last two years, even with the exact same legislative record, Democrats would be far more enthusiastic about this cycle, and swing-voters would have an emotional foothold for understanding and approving of the Democratic legislative agenda.
It's like the entire last two years our Caucus has believed the Republican line that people don't want Dem policies and we just need to jam through whatever we can get before we all get voted out in two years. And that became a goddamn self-fulfilling prophecy.
No mrdobalina. You are the perfect example. You are here proclaiming chocolate to be best and we are here saying that no, we want freedom and choice.
We aren't here to convince you, we are here to explain how we can convince other people.
All you are doing is trying to get in the way, to get us to frame arguments in the manner that is Republican ground, such that we lose.
we've had a couple of years of traditional democratic cowardice and ineptitude and intrasigence.
it's not like fucking max baucus or whoever else was even playing smart electoral politics. it's just the traditional democratic logrolling that he felt entitled to be the guy that had to be paid off. and because the senate leadership is so fucking spineless, they couldn't bring themselves to either quietly pay him off or else beat the shit out of him in the locker room.
it's hard to develop a coherent message in the midst of such a terribly fractuous party. everyone wants a slice and no one is willing to suck it up and play along.
it's not even really that health care reform was improperly framed by the left. it's just that it was framed in a thousand different ways and therefore not at all. even when obama was stumping for it, it was "well, whatever it might turn out to be it'll probably be better than what we have"
it was just stupid. the republicans wouldn't have let that happen.
Other issues like health care may be winnable with simple logic, but as Jon Stewart demonstrated, the Democrats lack the ability to articulate simple logic.
Going into a rehearsed 3 page point by point analysis of what healthcare has done so far is bad. More important than anything in this day and age, you need something memorable and to the point, and avoid exact numbers when possible. Taliban Dan works to me because that ad will make people remember "She should submit to me". I would wager dollars to donuts it will increase his numbers with female voters.
In addition, and this is just my opinion mind you, numbers turn people off, but every time I listen to the democrats I hear "97% this" or "524,000,000" that or whatever. It's okay to say "Small business owners ARE NOT GOING TO GET A TAX INCREASE!", even if 3% of "small businesses" will.
If you are going to use numbers, saying "half a billion!" or "a trillion!" is far better than giving an exact figure. If you're going to give a percent, use a percent ending in a zero
Just keep pounding things like the change to preexisting conditions and spending caps. The public loves those parts of the bill.
Yes, yes, yes, this.
I would almost have preferred the dems not even talking about the taxes or whatever. Keep hammering the preexisting conditions. People haven't actually seen that go into effect yet, explain why quickly and cleanly - it takes time to get something this large going, etc.
I largely agree with this. The one bone I want to pick is that while I agree that Max Baucus wasn't playing smart electoral politics, I think many similar Senators and Representatives (if maybe not him specifically) think that those sort of actions are smart politics. That running from the party and undermining the message and taking corporate money is the smart way to run things.
Of course, corporations tend to be fair-weather friends that will happily fund a Republican if they can find one with a chance to beat you, and running from the party and undermining the message and agenda can result in a toxic national environment that no amount of corporate slush money will save you from. And hell, many of them do it even without taking big paychecks as a result, which is even dumber.
Here are some good examples of this particular brand of thinking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKCCpLTL6tI
This is not a compelling ad. If you're a Democrat, and you're basically admitting in your ads that the Democratic agenda is crap, and the leadership is wrong, then what reason are you giving people to support a Democrat? Why not just vote in a full goddamn Republican and stop pussyfooting around?
Now, Chet Edwards is likely fucked no matter what ads he tries to run this cycle, but it's this sort of thinking that pervaded the last two years that created the national atmosphere that will get him kicked out of his seat. And he certainly did his part to contribute to it.
This will come days late (from Page 10), but I've been enjoying catching up on this thread so far...
It's a shame you quit, because you make the most sense in this thread so far and GoddamitImThick's playing of some kind of concern troll shows he'd make a really good Republican. He did reel you in pretty well with his "How can you possibly say that 1+1=2" act.
At least I hope it was an act. :?
Actually maybe something can be learnt from his small-minded obstructionism and the results used? Like how a resistance to CowPox protects against Smallpox?
I'm hoping you come back and I've got...oh about 20 more pages to see if you do...
I consider myself to be right-leaning. I mean, I hate o'reilly, but the 2k4 election was a pick-your-poison to me type of person.
So, uh, how the hell did democrats devolve into infighting and "wahh but I want this in the health care bill" when if it was the republicans they would have been doing insane adds for how it would save america and stuff? I get that not everything the right does is right, but they sure band together well...
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
This is a useful example of what not to do in this thread.
Ah yes, my one man campaign to force lefties to use Republi-speak in order to force electoral losses and...profit?
Note that I was clear that this was irrespective of my beliefs is your positions, which I think are wrongheaded and insane in many respects, but simply about your messaging. I don't expect you to try to convince me, no matter how you frame it.
One of the biggest complaints about democrats is that many of them behave in a craven manner, backing down and bending over for their aggressive opponents. You yourself used the term "Milquetoast." And then you suggest that they back down and bend over more.
The take away would be that your party has different levels of ineffectuality. I called it milquetoast because seriously, you guys should be hitting gay marriage from a dozen angles, not just screaming the same message repeatedly.
I've convinced people to support gay marriage - conservative people, becuase my message is fundamentally different that what you're peddling. No half-naked men on dick floats as Irondwill called it, and no attempts at parity with minority civil rights.
This happens to be one area we both fundamentally agree upon, but your (read: party's) message is inadequate. The Dems could kill in this area, not just gain ground inch by inch like they have. And they could do it without resorting to a court imposition.
Techically, yes. Emotionally and from a perspective of mind-share and acceptance? Not so much.
Take Gore v Bush for example. Many on the left decried that the election was stolen, despite the decision being made a "coequal branch of the government". The victory is more absolute and infinitely more meaningful when it's made by the people, not made for the people.
Depends if there's a fundamental minority right involved.