Thoughts on Political Messaging

[Hardkill]

I also think that Democrats should use a lot of tough on crime and tough on border security rhetoric and stay quiet about racism and xenophobia. In fact, they should talk a lot more about how foreign countries such as China have been hurting our economy, the middle class, and the working class. When former Ohio Congressman Tim Ryan ran against JD Vance for the US Senate seat of Ohio in 2022, even though he lost to Vance, he ran one hell of a campaign back then. He especially did a great job with messaging on how "it's us vs. China":

You guys are going to hate me for saying this, but honestly I really think that they should also do a lot more of what Carter and Bill Clinton for their presidential campaigns to court white and rural voters such as: 

• Visiting places like the Stone Mountain Correctional Facility in Georgia to promote their "tough on crime" message. Stone Mountain was the birthplace of the second rendition of the KKK and was a "white supremacist mecca."
• Campaigning with a lot more white politicians from middle America or the South who have had a history of being confederate apologists.

[aurum]

Don’t get so focused on specifics that you miss the big picture, meta-points being made.

This is a meta political thread.

[Hardkill]

4 hours ago, aurum said:

Don’t get so focused on specifics that you miss the big picture, meta-points being made.

This is a meta political thread.

I know, but Dems gotta win more elections.

[aurum]

11 hours ago, Hardkill said:

I know, but Dems gotta win more elections.

Prioritizing democrats winning over meta-issues is the problem I am attempting to draw attention to.

There can be other threads talking nitty-gritty democrat strategy. I would like this one to stay above that, as much as possible.

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

Prioritizing democrats winning over meta-issues is the problem I am attempting to draw attention to.

There can be other threads talking nitty-gritty democrat strategy. I would like this one to stay above that, as much as possible.

First of all, you're not even really explaining the meta viewpoint here as it isn't even really clear what you're advocating for or how you think that any of this would work in these circumstances where the other side is already plotting to steal the election and install themselves as a dictator.... and has really fringe draconian policy positions that will rip away basic freedoms in a very undemocratic way.

It's just... 'don't be pragmatic because Spiral Dynamics.'

Meta viewpoints without the integration of pragmatism are just impotent naval gazing that ensures that the forces of nonsense and tyranny will be the only pragmatic ones and that tyranny will take hold... while the forces of sense-making and democracy will content ourselves with saying "At least we're the sense-makers and not stooping to their level."

Or in many cases with autocracy, sense-makers would just be put in camps or shot by firing squads because they'd be too dangerous to the totalitarian state if left alive.

How in your view does this meta viewpoint you speak of integrate with pragmatism as it pertains to preventing the forces of tyranny to take hold?

And if it doesn't integrate with pragmatism and you view them as diametrically opposed to one another, then why is it better to prioritize sense-making sans pragmatism if it 100% guarantees the forces of tyranny will take hold?

In essence, why is it better and more in alignment with Tier 2 thinking for sense-makers to reject pragmatism and have no power... and for pragmatic tyrannical nonsense-makers to have all the power?

[aurum]

4 hours ago, Emerald said:

First of all, you're not even really explaining the meta viewpoint here as it isn't even really clear what you're advocating for or how you think that any of this would work in these circumstances where the other side is already plotting to steal the election and install themselves as a dictator.... and has really fringe draconian policy positions that will rip away basic freedoms in a very undemocratic way.

It's just... 'don't be pragmatic because Spiral Dynamics.'

Meta viewpoints without the integration of pragmatism are just impotent naval gazing that ensures that the forces of nonsense and tyranny will be the only pragmatic ones and that tyranny will take hold... while the forces of sense-making and democracy will content ourselves with saying "At least we're the sense-makers and not stooping to their level."

Or in many cases with autocracy, sense-makers would just be put in camps or shot by firing squads because they'd be too dangerous to the totalitarian state if left alive.

How in your view does this meta viewpoint you speak of integrate with pragmatism as it pertains to preventing the forces of tyranny to take hold?

And if it doesn't integrate with pragmatism and you view them as diametrically opposed to one another, then why is it better to prioritize sense-making sans pragmatism if it 100% guarantees the forces of tyranny will take hold?

In essence, why is it better and more in alignment with Tier 2 thinking for sense-makers to reject pragmatism and have no power... and for pragmatic tyrannical nonsense-makers to have all the power?

I will explain my POV one more time. I really do want you to get it.

I just ask for in return a genuine willingness to learn and to seriously consider the things I say.

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, aurum said:

I just ask for in return a genuine willingness to learn and to seriously consider the things I say.

Hey now! So demanding!  

Edited August 30 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

I don't think talking about spiral dynamics is relevant or necessary or helpful here.

You can make arguments why or how practicality can undermine sensemaking or why it doesn't necessarily undermine sensemaking, without needing to bring in all the unnecessary baggage of SD.

 

 

[aurum]

15 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Hey now! So demanding!  

Just wait until I start asking for basic politeness 😈

[Yimpa]

Lucyfer is HOT! 

Self-deception at its finest. 

 

[Emerald]

On 8/29/2024 at 8:05 PM, aurum said:

I will explain my POV one more time. I really do want you to get it.

I just ask for in return a genuine willingness to learn and to seriously consider the things I say.

Of course, I will consider it, as I have in relation to your previous posts.

But as of right now, I'm either not understanding what you actually mean and there is a miscommunication... or I have been understanding you correctly and your point of view just doesn't square with the way the world actually works.

Either way, I need more of your thought process to get whether this is your viewpoint and why this is your viewpoint.

And it needs to not involve the Spiral Dynamics model because "It's tier 2 thinking" just doesn't cut it as an explanation. 

[Bobby_2021]

On 8/30/2024 at 1:33 PM, zurew said:

I don't think talking about spiral dynamics is relevant or necessary or helpful here.

You can make arguments why or how practicality can undermine sensemaking or why it doesn't necessarily undermine sensemaking, without needing to bring in all the unnecessary baggage of SD.

Noo doode I am stage coral and you are all stage turquoise normies. 😂😁

That's the kind of "nuanced" conversation that happens here. Brag that you are at a higher stage of development on a poorly made half assed developmental model and refuse to explain further.

@Emerald You are among the few that I have seen here that values actual explanation and adding something to the conversation. I don't think most people have substance powering their thoughts process. So asking people to explain what's going on underneath is futile because their isn't any.

Edited September 5 by Bobby_2021

[Hardkill]

Hey, what do you guys think about the idea of having the fairness doctrine reinstated?

Positive effects:

• Increased diversity of perspectives: Media outlets would need to present balanced coverage, exposing audiences to a wider range of viewpoints.
• Reduced polarization: By presenting contrasting views, media could help bridge the ideological divide and foster more nuanced discussions.
• Improved critical thinking: Audiences would be encouraged to engage critically with different perspectives, promoting media literacy and informed decision-making.
• Enhanced credibility: Media outlets might regain credibility by demonstrating a commitment to balanced reporting and diverse perspectives.

Challenges and potential drawbacks:

• Regulatory complexities: Reinstating the doctrine would require significant regulatory updates and enforcement mechanisms.
• First Amendment concerns: Some argue that the doctrine could infringe upon freedom of speech and press, as it might compel media outlets to present views they disagree with.
• Practical challenges: Implementing the doctrine could be difficult, especially in today's digital media landscape with numerous outlets and platforms.
• Potential for tokenism: Media outlets might fulfill the doctrine's requirements by presenting token opposing views, rather than genuinely engaging with diverse perspectives.
• Impact on opinion-driven content: The doctrine might affect the viability of opinion-driven shows, podcasts, or commentary, potentially limiting their ability to express a clear viewpoint.

Unintended consequences:

• Over-regulation: Excessive regulation could lead to a chilling effect on free speech, driving controversial or innovative content underground.
• Media homogenization: The doctrine might inadvertently encourage media outlets to adopt a "safe" middle ground, suppressing unique perspectives and innovative content.
• Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would require careful consideration of these factors to ensure that it promotes balanced coverage and diverse perspectives without infringing upon freedom of expression or stifling innovation.

Edited September 5 by Hardkill

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

That's the kind of "nuanced" conversation that happens here. Brag that you are at a higher stage of development on a poorly made half assed developmental model and refuse to explain further.

What Spiral peasantry!

[Hardkill]

55 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

What Spiral peasantry!

I wish we could go back to the good old days when the traditional non-partisan mainstream media outlets were the dominant sources of news and political commentary in our country.

Edited September 5 by Hardkill

[Buck Edwards]

2 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

I wish we could go back to the good old days when the traditional non-partisan mainstream media outlets were the dominant sources of news and political commentary in our country.

We still have them. They're called alternative news. 

[Leo Gura]

32 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

I wish we could go back to the good old days when the traditional non-partisan mainstream media outlets were the dominant sources of news and political commentary in our country.

That's not a real solution. You would lose a lot of important epistemic diversity.

In a sense, today's epistemic chaos has been created by 80 years of liberalism.

Conservatives warned us that liberalism would kill us all. Now we understand what they meant. But liberals never connect the dots.

Edited September 5 by Leo Gura

[Hardkill]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That's not a real solution. You would lose a lot of important epistemic diversity.

In a sense, today's epistemic chaos has been created by 80 years of liberalism.

Conservatives warned us that liberalism would kill us all. Now we understand what they meant. But liberals never connect the dots.

Well, this media environment is clearly not working for us. It's caused too much chaos and division in our society.

Besides, we can't keep letting the conservatives win the messaging war.

We already had conservatism dominate US politics since the election of Reagan in the 80s. The election of Obama in 2008 or the emergence of the progressive movement since 2016 were supposed to usher in a new era of liberal/progressive politics like in the early 1900s progressive era or like during the mid 1900s.

Edited September 5 by Hardkill

[Leo Gura]

39 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

We already had conservatism dominate US politics since the election of Reagan in the 80s.

That's what I mean by not connecting the dots.

On the one hand you say that chaos and epistemic diversity is destroying us. Yet at the same time you are upset that we didn't get even more liberalism!

You are not recognizing that it's liberalism that got us here, not conservatism.

The conservatives lost the culture war for 80 years but you don't even see it!

Liberals don't see the problems liberalism creates, and always assume that the solution to any problem is more liberalism.

Edited September 5 by Leo Gura

[Hardkill]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That's what I mean by not connecting the dots.

On the one hand you say that chaos and epistemic diversity is destroying us. Yet at the same time you are upset that we didn't get even more liberalism!

You are not recognizing that it's liberalism that got us here, not conservatism.

The conservatives lost the culture war for 80 years but you don't even see it!

Liberals don't see the problems liberalism creates, and always assume that the solution to any problem is more liberalism.

Conservatives, right-wing libertarians, and Republicans are the ones who haven't wanted any regulations on free speech for decades. Reagan and Republicans were the ones who got rid of the fairness doctrine.

Liberals, progressives, moderates, and Independents actually want reasonable regulations on freedom speech in order to prevent such misinformation, to have real meaningful discourse on policies, find common ground, and have a more effective governance.

Btw, why 80 years?

Edited September 5 by Hardkill