this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024

124 points (99.2% liked)

politics

19098 readers

3960 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

124

Democrats Are, In Fact, Cracking Down at the Border (www.rollingstone.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Archived at https://archive.is/UnT60

all 46 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 20 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Course they are. It won't net them a single Republican vote, but they get to experience the sheer joy of throwing a vulnerable population under the bus.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I have the impression quite a few Democratic voters are a bit anti-immigrant too.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 14 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I don't have the numbers, but to many Democrat voters lax immigration policy and generally better treatment of immigrants is the reason they vote democrat. The Dems are losing a good amount of public goodwill by doing this.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't want lax immigration policies. I want consistant immigration policies. I like the crack down on businesses taking advantage of illegal immigration and supporting legal methods.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean sure, but this was supposed to be one of the core differences between Democrats and Republicans that the Dems just threw in the trash, along with the voters this difference got them.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't think they threw it in the trash just because its not the only thing they do. Its a large and complex issue. Its like I understand even border security actions but walls are stupid and problematic and make no sense given modern times. Now granted the article is about rhetoric but I expect them to do the same things we have seen them do in the past which has largely been effective.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Now granted the article is about rhetoric but I expect them to do the same things we have seen them do in the past which has largely been effective.

I mean the Biden administration signaled a massive shift from what they've been doing in the past, which is what I was referring to by lax policies, and Harris went further than that to get Republican voters' support.

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago

This shift is because we need the GOP to vote for anything that gets passed. They will not vote for a pathway to citizenship. They will not vote to protect DACA recipients. They will not vote to do the things that actually need to be done, that Democrats have proposed. So the only thing leftover is enforcement measures, some of which are still needed.

Doing nothing is acceptable to the GOP and they have the votes to make that happen. We need to get rid of them, that's the solution here.

[–] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 weeks ago

Nobody I know is asking for lax immigration policies. We want more judges to process the cases in a timely manner. We want migrants to be treated humanely during that process - given shelter, care, and not separated from their children. We want border control to have the resources necessary to deter unauthorized entry, and ensure authorized entry is available to those who need it.

These are not radical desires, it's about fixing the completely overwhelmed systems already in place. It should not take years to determine if someone was qualified to enter.

Or, we can go with trump's approach of denying everyone entry by default, detaining and separating their families, and sorting out the details never.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

No doubt it is for many. They're probably going to vote Democrat even if they find the candidate's stance on immigration unreasonably harsh because [insert long rant about plurality voting and the two-party system].

[–] theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 weeks ago

Sure but anyone who votes based on their hatred for immigrants will always go Republican simply because they are more openly fascistic on this issue.

[–] AshMan85@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

How about the crack down on the domestic terrorists

[–] trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 weeks ago

Best we can do is laundering the far-right narrative that there is a crisis at the border and advocating for the far-right border bill that Republicans want.

[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

When democrats go to the right on issues, they don't attract republican voters. What happens instead is that republicans go even farther right in order to differentiate themselves from democrats.

[–] Shark_Ra_Thanos@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago

Left, Left...

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

That only makes sense if you view the electorate as though on a linear spectrum (and are standing squarely on "the left"). If you view it more like this, then it helps explain phenomena like this where ~15% of moderate/liberal Republicans routinely vote for Democrats, as opposed to ~7% of conservative/moderate Democrats going the other direction. It also helps explain issues where Trump outflanks Democrats on the left, which tends to attract Sanders-Trump voters.

edit: I'll add that the downvoting on perfectly matter-of-fact comments in this thread (and quite frankly, most others on Lemmy/Reddit) is a really crisp display of the left's toxic intolerance that Trump so readily and effectively leverages with middle America. Hammer that button, folks. In an infinitesimal way you're proving Trump right every time you do.

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Yep and even maintaining this appearance - there's still a large chance they won't pull in enough red voters to beat Trump.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The idea that any one is switching tides in an environment this polarized is idiotic.

[+] DarkCloud@lemmy.world -13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

I know this won't be a popular comment. But the left has played a huge emotional role in tha polarization. This is a difficult comment to accept, a difficult role to accept - because it's irrational.

That's the nature of emotions. They don't necessarily make rational sense. But Trump and the Republicans aren't playing by the same sensible and rational politics the left and Democrats have been.

The Republicans have been running an emotionally driven narrative based campaign that's most successful with men... And the left has ignored this and often fallen into its trals. Played a part, a large part in defining this process.

Obama addressed Black men, accused them of not fully supporting Harris because "they don't like the idea of a woman being in charge." He decided what they were thinking as if he knew, spoke down to them in this manner, scolded them emotionally.

This is going to turn a section of those voters off.

Biden, said Trump supporters are "garbage", echoing Hillary's "Basket of Deplorables" moment. A section of voters that don't like that sort of politics, politics that goes after them emotionally, judging them, will be further solidified in an emotional sense to their vote for Trump. Those hearts won't be softened now. Those votes can't be won. It's emotional. It's further polarizing, and it's being done by leftists.

The irony is, Kamala herself isn't doing it. High level supporters are. Frankly lots of leftists are.

When Trump wears a garbage man uniform to express sympathy for his supporters having been told they're garbage, it wins their loyalty. Their appreciation. It's emotional for them.

Most leftists call them stupid and wonder why they're stuck in the MAGA cult - they've been driven there. By an emotional narrative that only one side sees or knows how to properly curate and interact with. That narrative has kept them there. Made it an alluring and welcoming emotional home for them to be comforted by, whilst the other side judges them for it.

The left don't realize this, and it's really too late to. But this is indeed what's been happening all along. The left have played a huge part in setting up what might be a huge loss for them, and possibly a huge loss for the future of American democracy.

I understand you don't want to hear this. It might even make you feel judged. But I needed to tell you, because it's the truth.

[–] sensiblepuffin@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

So your argument is that stupid people are falling for really transparently disingenuous PR stunts and that neither those perpetuating those stunts nor the ones falling for it have played a huge role in it.

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

No, it's not an argument, and it's not about blame, it's about the causation of an emotional narrative that gets constructed, and it's that emotional narrative that drives irrational levels of political support.

Your criticism of my comment is rational.

Rationally it's clear that Trump causes Trumpism, his followers are stupid or misfits for going along with it.

But that overlooks my purpose. I'm answering why they do it, I'm telling you the irrational and emotional causes... Not who is rationally "to blame" on a logical level. That's already known.

Because the thing is - people are often driven by their emotions. For many people, right now on the planet you have to live on, for many of those people - logic and reason are after thoughts... Things they decorated their excuses with after the (emotional) fact. It's the superficial dressing they put on and over their emotions, and often on their emotional wounds.

...and all this may be what determines the election outcome.

[–] sensiblepuffin@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Okay, let's go down this road. I think you've touched on something important, so I genuinely want to get this.

How have the left played a "huge emotional role" in the polarization? I suppose you could argue that "the libs" or progressives have essentially started to shun those who they find don't agree with them on certain key issues (abortion/birth control, immigration, etc.).

But how does this differ from how political discourse has been for the last few decades? People want to act like cancel culture is this new thing that Millenials invented, but societies have utilized shame in order to shun unwanted or undesirable opinions forever. Really, the only thing that's changed from my perspective is that people have started drawing lines in the sand, and conservative reactionaries stamp all over the lines, then go Pikachu-face when they're boycotted.

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

So I have a personal example, and I'll keep it brief because there's a lot of really detailed nuance here.

I was holding a meeting about 2 years ago, and someone recommended a follow up sub-committee meeting. I told them I'd pull together a small group of people to hold a "pow wow". An Asian-American girl in the meeting who's your prototypical hyper-aware leftist reached out to me after the meeting. She handled it 100% professionally and exactly the way she should have, and she politely said, "I didn't want to say something during the meeting because I know you didn't mean anything by it, but I do cringe a bit when you call your meetings a 'pow wow.' I just thought you should be aware." I thanked her for pointing it out, apologized that it was something I'd always said almost unconsciously, and told her I'd try to do better in the future.

I've thought about that interaction for years. There's something in my lizard brain that feels almost offended that she'd call me out for something like that. I consider myself to be a keenly aware left-leaning person, and I'm quite sensitive to racial or sexuality-based jokes. I run in some conservative circles, so these kinds of jokes are common. Though this particular confrontation shouldn't bother me, for some reason deep down it does. My irrational, emotional brain wants to say, "That's not fair! You know I didn't mean anything by it! I'm not racist!", and my rational brain just says, "No big deal, be better in the future."

I can't explain why it's so deeply unsettling to be called out for doing something racist when I clearly didn't mean it that way. But it does help me understand a right-leaning person who's used to building social capital by telling racially-charged jokes that were probably very funny 10-15 years ago. Suddenly they're not just living in a culture that doesn't find those things funny, they're surrounded by people who readily call them "racist" for repeating jokes they've probably heard dozens of times from other people. I do not think those kinds of people are racist, I just think they grew up surrounded by subconsciously-racialized tropes, and they're simply reflecting those tropes back out into the world. And I now know how deeply painful it can be to be called a racist when you 100% didn't intend it that way. I'm sure there's a spectrum of intent and personal reflection, and some people fall closer to the "racist" end of the spectrum, plus some people think more or less about how they're perceived by other people, but I understand their pain now. I cringe when the left so readily throws out these labels, not because they're not true on some level, but because they're "othering" to people who might be sandwiched between cultural sub-groups, and those kinds of attacks aren't going to make those people more reflective or open to your arguments.

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes, that feeling about having said Pow Wow, and being called out on it in the most gentle and polite manner, must he a very small version of the inciting incident many MAGA types probably went through, or feel they went through.

Abd where you were self aware enough to reel in that indignant feeling of being corrected, they can't. They didn't have that, for whatever reason.

It may have been knee jerk, it may have been poor cultural timing, or part of a group looking to exclude them for any reason, it may have been part of their divorce, or maybe they just weren't politically aware enough to deal and cope with being called out. Or maybe they were just a bit slow. But whatever it is, they're stuck there and so are gonna try to alter society to what they said, rather than admit they were out of line, or out of date with current standards of propriety.

Interestingly enough Thomas Piketty the Marxist theorist who wrote Capital in the Twenty First century, predicted that as the wealth gap got larger society would return to Victorian era ideas around social classes, the idea of not marrying below your station, and of not fraternizing with commoners or the poor, or bwong uncouth like them.

I don't know if this might be part of that, but it seems you understand some of the emotional aspects of gow someone slips into the MAGA mindset. The sense of betrayal they must feel.

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

100%. It's fucking weird to empathize with people I've hated for so long, even if only microscopically. I still don't know how to reach them, but I feel it.

[–] sensiblepuffin@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I appreciate the anecdote, because I think it's happened to all of us. I had a similar interaction with someone who balked at my usage of the word "homeless" (I live in a city, so it's come up once or twice), insisting that I should instead call them "unhoused".

I think the important point in your anecdote is saying "it's unsettling and angering to be called out for doing/saying something racist when you in fact are not racist". My stance on this issue is that everyone's a little bit *-ist. Instead of concluding "people can do and say racist things while not being racist", I think a more helpful conclusion would be "people do and say racist shit all the time without meaning it because we have a lot of racism built into our brains".

I agree with you on the othering, however. I dislike when people try and put racists, sexists, etc. in a timeout corner, mostly because it seems to be with the aim of declaring themselves A Good Person rather than actually affecting any social change. I think it's more helpful to say "hey, look, we're all born with a lot of baggage from our environments and parents, and we don't get to choose how our brains are molded".

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Yeah I completely agree. Implicit bias is a universal human trait, and I've consciously tried to be aware of the times it rears its ugly head. That's why I was so caught off guard, because I'm usually on the lookout for stuff like that. My best friend is a director at a media company, and he's spent nearly 2 years carefully documenting his interactions with a black, female subordinate of his. She's generally a really bad employee, a poor worker, antagonistic to colleagues, and all around a sour human being, but he can't discipline her the way he disciplines his other employees because she and her sister (who works under another director) readily claim that they're being discriminated against, no matter how innocuous the interaction or how mundane the offense. They've had to fire white, cis male employees with better track records because they're afraid that if they fire her she'll take them to court. He's a lifelong Republican who registered as a Democrat after 2016 and voted straight-ticket Dem this election, but he regularly confides in me that he's deeply frustrated with the way he has to interact with these sisters. He has to constantly look over his shoulder, he has to treat her with kit gloves, and he has to document every word he speaks to her so there's a detailed record of their conversations. I'm not saying she's not actively discriminated against in her daily life because I'm sure she 100% is, but I'm also not saying she's not taking advantage of this cultural moment to re-construct the power dynamic with the white male supervisor below her, no matter the needs of the business. This is why blue collar Trump supporters so routinely crow about people "playing the race card", because some people actually do.

We're not in a healthy place as a society, and extremists/activists on both sides are really bad at self-reflection.

[–] sensiblepuffin@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That's anecdotal, but it does display the frustrations that people have with what they perceive as injust wokeness.

I think it's important to mention that shitty people are everywhere and in all shapes and colors; these two may just stand out because he does feel like he has to walk on eggshells around them.

What I will say is that I think it's a mistake to assume that people who are minorities or other discriminated classes are also progressive by nature. In a perfect world, your race and gender would have nothing to do with what political ideology you subscribe to, but we live in a far from perfect world.

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm not sure where I made that assumption?

[–] sensiblepuffin@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

I didn't say you did, but I can see how you got there.

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I don't think cancel culture is a thing. You literally can't cancel anyone in this day and age. Ben Shapiro, Hulk Hogan, Jordan Peterson, Trump, Elon Musk, none of these people who "got cancelled" ever suffered anything other than an opportunity to get their names out there. The controversy is the point, they got clicks out of it. So there's that. Cancelling isn't a thing. It just gets you views.

...that usurps the politics of shame, and it's a very recent change. It now functions as a signal amplifier and makes things into a constant moralization machine. A machine that creates judgementalness. Like, an unnatural and exhaustive amount of judgementalness which starts to come off as fragility. Frailty, weakness, "victim culture" whatever you want to call it. It's a space ripe for trolls who want more views. Like there's a reason Matt Walsh can make millions from the "documentaries" he makes.

Anyways, I don't have a coherent answer for you. I've come to the conclusions I have, seen what I've seen and tried to explain it - it's all very new to me. I realized whilst trying to explain the garbage truck thing on here today.

...that there's two narratives on Trump the garbage man, and that they don't connect, and only one explains Trump's strange behaviours, appearances, and strategies.

Some of the credit for me seeing this, goes to monitoring right wing spaces, and videos like this one from ShoeOnHead - who says she's a progressive leftist, but essentially supports and explains the positions of young right wing men.

...and that probably ties into part of it, gender, race, class, ethnicity. These things are close to people's emotions. To their emotional identities.

I don't think I'm giving a good explanation here because I'm still figuring out how to explain it. But it has to do with

the digital landscape changing the function and profitablity of the politics of shame (Jordan Peterson brags about it this way "I've figured out how to monetize the Social Justice Warriors").
The moralization and judgemental landscape this creates being ripe for more trolling.
Identities being core to what emotionally drives people's responses. Whether that's fragile white masculinity, or Black Lives Mattering, or Trans rights.
An exploitative fascist like Trump coming along who understands PR.

All of this coming together at once creates a digital and emotional landscape that can be manicured by fascists in a way that may get them into office.

[–] sensiblepuffin@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Re: coherent answer, that's okay. I'm rarely coherent.

Cancel culture is most certainly a thing. It has the effect of saying to people "hey, if you don't change your views, then your life is going to be a little more unpleasant." You'll get dirty looks when you order coffee with your MAGA hat on, or get laughed at when you drive your Cybertruck down the street. No one is entitled to not have these things happen to them, so in my mind they're fair game.

The reason cancel culture has largely failed is because instead of hearing numerous people say "hey, your opinions and actions make me a little uncomfortable to engage with you as I normally would another person, and so I'm going to not engage with you", conservatives have instead retreated to their own corner (think treehouse that says No Girls Allowed) to all gather and complain that no one else will play with them. In short, they've taken the wrong lesson from it.

The way that podcasts and other methods of engagement have changed the way shame works is an example of this, not evidence that it doesn't work. I would argue that if your identity is built largely on being disrespectful of certain groups of people and looking down upon them, your identity doesn't really deserve to exist. I disagree that Trump "understands" just about anything he says. He has ridden a wave of podcast bros, crypto fanatics, undercover racists, gun nuts, and other people who have taken the wrong lesson from the admittedly annoying moralizing that people have sent their way.

Fascists have most certainly taken advantage of the landscape to boost recruitment and foment dissatisfaction and anger, but I think once again, we're learning the wrong lesson. We need to stop being so tolerant of those who do not in turn show tolerance.

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I would argue that if your identity is built largely on being disrespectful of certain groups of people and looking down upon them, your identity doesn't really deserve to exist.

But they do exist, and they're winning the average of polls right now, by 0.4%. They're in place to win the election. That's the problem, they do exist. It's not about that, it's about why they exist.

If you're still "arguing" something, then I don't think you get what I'm saying. There's not a rational explanation. It's emotional. They're operating on emotional paradigms and responses.

Someone wearing a MAGA cap hence, can't be proof cancel culture still exists. You explained peoples reaction to the hat, as cancel culture; the shame the wearer gets, the looks, how uncomfortable that must be - but you didn't explain why the MAGA person still wears the hat!

They've not been cancelled - they're trying to be. They want that level of attention.

They're wearing the hat to "flaunt the law". They're wearing it as a fuck you, I'm part of the club that I think is cool, and we're on Trump's side and they'll all defend anything I do in this hat so you better watch out. It's the Christian side, the family side, the white side, the side that sticks together and are sick of woke, left, moralists. "Tell me I'm wrong, so I can tell you I don't care what you think!" That's their mindset.

They're people who will use the N word if you discuss ethics and morality with them too long. Because that would show you they don't care about that stuff, it hurt when it got pinned on them (before they found MAGA). They didn't like the shame, so now they bask in it, and they think they're good and true and right for doing so. Because no one has a right to judge them (except maybe Trump).

That's not cancel culture working.

They want the intolerance you want to be shown to them. They're celebrating that Biden called them garbage, they see it a chance for a response, and as proof of their emotional position.That: "See! The left were the bad guys all along, they are the moralist bullies we said they were. Mean to us for no good reasons." That's their premise.

[–] sensiblepuffin@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They want those things so they can claim that they're being bullied. It's Christianity all over again - a group of people who historically have been pandered to and coddled claim that everyone is being mean to them and so we should be instituting some sort of theocratic state. That'll show them.

I'm not arguing with them, though, am I? I'm making the argument to you and others who (seemingly) aren't all the way down the rabbit hole.

My overarching purpose with all these comments is to dispute the idea that the left is somehow responsible for how the right has gone full-on fascist over the past 4 election cycles. The right is responsible for their own logical and moral failings.

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

No, the left aren't in any way responsible for the right's fascism, but understanding the role they/we have played in the Trumpist manufacture of a kind of "emotional pornography" that gets used in their propaganda narrative for their fascist outlook, might help in better responding to it, and avoiding the further adoption of that role in the cycle of its production.

Having an emotional role, a part you fall into playing in something, isn't quite the same as being responsible for it. Because this role just comes naturally for a lot of people.

But yeah, thanks you for clarifying your purpose, the right will try regardless, so I agree with what your purpose, and that the left is not responsible for the right, even if the right will sometimes use the left's outrage as a cog in their propaganda machine.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

societies have utilized shame in order to shun unwanted or undesirable opinions forever

Using shame isn't new. Using shame in this particular way at this particular time appears to be a poor strategy. It's deliberately divisive and conservative reactionaries aren't the only ones who are motivated to vote against it. By now many people who call themselves liberal and have a history of reliably voting for Democrats oppose it too. I think Nate Silver does a good job of expressing why in the context of Israel, although he's looking at a much bigger picture. Most of these people are still voting for Democrats, because Harris is a centrist and Trump is, well, Trump. It's still not helping.

Lemmy is a place where it often seems like leftist views are almost universal among Democrats, but Lemmy is not representative of the large majority of Democratic voters. I don't think most Harris voters (as opposed to just the vocal Democrats online) despise Republicans.

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

I needed that Nate Silver article. Thanks for linking.

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You're catching downvotes, but you're not wrong.

The emotional vibe from the left is: "If you're not enough of a leftist according to my unique standards, you're basically the worst person to ever exist. And don't ask me to explain, cuz it's not my job to educate you."

The emotional vibe from the right is: "Welcome home, you clever protagonist you. You knew the truth all along, you just needed the courage to admit you knew it. Hey, while you're here, I'd like to introduce you to a few other things you might not realize you already believe."

The supreme irony is: The right doesn't believe in democracy. They don't believe you can persuade people and get them on your side and move forward with a cohesive vision of governance. Yet they're doing a better job of persuading people than the left is.

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, and I'm like not glad we're seeing the same thing here... And I think you're gonna cop some more downvotes too. The point I want to make to others is - we're not pointing this out to attack anyone or because we want this perspective to be true. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to be wrong here.

I'd prefer if everyone was rational and emotions just didn't come into it... But they do!... And I don't have an answer for that other than trying to get people to see they do. To see that's a huge driving factor for a lot of people.

People who get to vote! People who will be voting! You only have to see the emotional logic of what's been going on once! Then you'll start to recognize the landscape when someone say Trump voters are so stupid or How did our country get to this point... Because I see how, now that I see the emotional journey some Trump followers have fallen into.

...and that's not to say all of them. Because I don't think this is true for people like Steve Banon, or Kevin Roberts (head of Project 2025), or Stephen Miller, or even Elon Musk. But for some of his followers - very low level people, this has totally been the journey they've been on, the emotional narrative that's become locked in hard for them.

It's gonna take vision and empathy, and humor to mount any sort of response or gentle reversing of it. To get any sort of deprogramming done... And that climate is a long long LONG way down the road, and may never come!

So this chapter of America's politics becomes another solidifying chapter in the mainstream two party system.

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If you're interested, my comment was basically a sample of this fantastic interview with Anand Giridharadas: https://youarenotsosmart.com/2023/04/02/yanss-256-anand-giridharadas-wants-americans-to-change-their-minds-about-their-ability-change-other-americans-minds/

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Thanks I'll check it out!

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah but the other party are fascists so I’m still gonna vote for them

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml -4 points 2 weeks ago

Why are you even using that word if it's not attached to actions like this

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Blue dogs:

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -5 points 2 weeks ago

Rolling Stone - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for Rolling Stone:

Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.). Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution. The publication's capsule reviews deserve less weight than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking. See also Rolling Stone (politics and society), 2011–present, Rolling Stone (Culture Council).
Wiki: unreliable - According to a 2021 RfC discussion, there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011 (inclusive), though it must be borne in mind that this date is an estimate and not a definitive cutoff, as the deterioration of journalistic practices happened gradually. Some editors have said that low-quality reporting also appeared in some preceding years, but a specific date after which the articles are considered generally unreliable has not been proposed. Previous consensus was that Rolling Stone was generally reliable for political and societal topics before 2011. Most editors say that Rolling Stone is a partisan source in the field of politics, and that their statements in this field should be attributed. Moreover, medical or scientific claims should not be sourced to the publication.
Wiki: unreliable - There is unanimous consensus among editors that Culture Council articles (of URL form rollingstone.com/culture-council/*) are self-published sources and are, in most aspects, equivalent to Forbes and HuffPost contributors. Editors, however, have also expressed concern that at least some of the content published is promotional and thus not usable. Editors should thus determine on a case-by-case basis whether the opinions published there are independent and also if they constitute due weight. Usage of these sources for third-party claims in biographies of living persons as well as medical or scientific claims is not allowed.

MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/democrats-border-crackdown-harris-biden-trump-election-2024-1235146918/

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support