Ephoron

Tl;Dr

"I'm really clever and have thought through my decision really carefully so anyone who disagrees with that decision must be really ignorant because for some reason it's literally impossible for rational people to just disagree about something and discuss it."

Do you have any intention of actually answering the question, or is it all just going to be "you're so ignorant, you don't understand"?

I literally said it isn't the clear logic game you wanted to be.

Yes,and then you went on to present a clear logic game of your own (vote for Kamala=good), hence my criticism.

Go ahead, ask away.

I thought I had but...

If the Democrats are not assured victory (as you now seem to be saying) then why is the anti-genocide strategy supposed to be 'vote for them anyway', and not 'refuse to vote for them unless they change their policy'.

We start from the premise that Democrats need votes (either because they're losing, or because they don't want to rest on their laurels). We agree one of these is the case, yes?

So your anti-genocide solution is to just give them the votes they need without asking for anything in return.

The solution @when@lemmy.world suggested, which you're arguing against, is to negotiate. To use the power we have as voters whose vote they need (or really, really want), to ask for a change in policy in return for that vote.

You haven't explained why the latter won't work other than the Democrats not wanting those votes, or not wanting to end the genocide.

If we assume both - the Democrats want to end genocide and want more votes, them why wouldn't they offer to end genocide in exchange for more votes?

none of this is the neat logic game you want it to be.

And yet...

in this election, Harris is the clear better choice for people who are not selfish.

So presumably it is the "neat clear logic game" you want it to be.

You haven't answered any of the criticisms raised against your argument.

It's OK to just disagree with me and explain why, you know. You don't have to label all opposing arguments as 'nonsense' (or misinformation, or ideologically biased, or whatever the latest buzz-term is...). You can just disagree. Humans are marvellous like that, we look at things differently from each other and form different views as a result. We even have this amazing tool 'rational discourse' whereby we can dissect those differences. It's great.

If you think one (or more) of my criticisms flawed, then quote it and point out the flaw. Try it, you might like it.

I think the trick has been to give people a plausible narrative that makes them sound like the clever ones, standard power-play. People love that stuff, myself included, we're all vulnerable to it. It's why conspiracy theories work so well, but here, the same psychology is put to use rewarding people for saying stuff that's obviously morally bankrupt. I think it works the same way a peacock's tail works in evolution, the idea being that 'surely no one would say something so obviously awful unless they had a really very complicated and convincing reason'

It's allowed some of the decade's worst atrocities to go virtually unopposed.

threatening to let conservatives further mangle the country when you have a progressive alternative is selfish and incredibly narrow-minded.

And how exactly is not voting doing that when...

the democrats are already winning the votes of young and decided voters

Either the Democrats are comfortably winning (in which case we can vote with our conscience), or they're not (in which case vocal opposition to genocide might encourage them to change policies to garner our vote).

The alternative is that nothing will get them to change policies because they're not interested in our vote. In which case the whole "turn up and the Democrats will move left" theory is nonsense.

I'll ask the same question i did on the other thread. Why, do disaffected voters have to ...

[show] up during primaries or generals to indicate that moving left will pay anything back.

Why not just poll them, or focus-group them, or use proxies like social media?

You seem to have no problem with the notion of leftist groups communicating preferred policies to Democrat strategists, but then seem to bizarrely assume that the only way to communicate a willingness to vote is to actually vote (for a party you don't agree with).

Tell me... We all go out and vote Democrat. They get into power. How do they now know it wasn't the support for genocide that won them the vote and go even further next time?

Ohh. A whataboutism and a confirmation-bias Google search.

Does that score double?

Anyway, confusion aside,I've decided to take your advice and eschew online research.

I've found some good old-fashioned print resources...

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/subscribe/

https://nypost.com/

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1510779027/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=

I look forward to getting stuck in to some bias-free research and clearing out those pesky old opinions. Thanks.

Online users (except Wogi@lemmy.world) tend to select claims that adhere to their system of beliefs and to ignore dissenting information.

Fixed that for you. Or did you not even realise you're online right now?

Surely you mean "one should..."

No, on second thoughts...

Exactly the point I was making. You engage in whataboutism when it suits you. It's nothing to do with any ideological commitment to authenticity in discourse. It's just boring tribalism.