I never said anything about the middle. I was specific to the GOP/Trump supporters.
But there are moderate republicans that have voted red for so long they cant vote blue because of habit and endless rhetoric. While they are facist sympathizers in that they vote red with their ehad in the sand, wether they know it or not, what do you gain by calling them that? Nothing really, its just inflammatory, and it will drive them farther towards the facist ideology as it will be the only place that will accept them.
Dealing with this requires criticism, and forcing them to see the error of their ways whether they like it or not.
Hard disagree. You should look into how to change peoples minds, because if you start by calling them a facist sympathizer its over. This is the biggest reason I’m against this kind of speech, while true, that person wont identify as such, but they will recognize the attack on them, put up their guard, and then its done. If you want to convince people of stuff, you have to find middle ground with them first and then broach topics from your point of view without speaking in antagonizing labels, or find a way to show how you both actually want the same thing, its a slow process, but it requires finding common ground to approach the topics you really want to convince them on from.
The germans didn’t change their minds until they were forcibly marched to the camps to see the death and destruction they wrought upon the jews and other prisoners.
This just shows how people need proof to accept things sometimes, the conversation is about changing minds and reducing polarization though, so I don’t know what point you’re trying to make with this. If its that they need to be called facists to learn, you are mistaken. Personal attacks never lead to a change of mind. You are better off showing (note: not calling, but showing) how the republican party are facists, than by calling the voters facists. In fact even using the word facist wont help, you may have better progress by getting them to agree the constitution is a marvelous document we should protect, they will agree, this is common ground, then you say something like “its a real shame it doesn’t hold the supreme court accountable for bribes though” or maybe “its a real shame that they are trying to give the executive branch unchecked power” as this is definitely not what the framers ever had in mind, its the exact opposite,. But this is how you argue stuff to affect change.
If we are going to put effort into fixing this problem we should fix it right, we shouldn’t take half measures.
Great is the enemy of good, anything that gets rid of the 2 party system while allowing multiple parties can and should be supported whole heartedly. You cant get hung up on finding the best solution when the solution presented helps us not steer off of the cliff. But yes, we should fight for the best system, but rally behind whichever one is chosen in the end, much like every election, you wish the candidate was inline with your views, but you’ll swallow and vote for what is available anyways.
So does McDonald’s but that doesn’t mean it is a good choice.
It is better than our current system, this is good enough for me, and it should be for you, but again, any system that allows for multiple parties is a good choice.
While they are facist sympathizers in that they vote red with their ehad in the sand, wether they know it or not, what do you gain by calling them that?
I’m not seeking to gain anything. But I do want to live in reality, and so I will call a fascist sympathizer a fascist sympathizer.
Nothing really, its just inflammatory, and it will drive them farther towards the facist ideology as it will be the only place that will accept them.
Those lifelong GOP voters were already going to end up fully in cult mode in support of fascism, or they were eventually going to snap out of it. Calling them what they are doesn’t change that.
that person wont identify as such, but they will recognize the attack on them, put up their guard, and then its done.
They put up their guard 8 years ago during the 2016 election. Nothing you say to them will change anything.
If you want to convince people of stuff, you have to find middle ground with them first and then broach topics from your point of view without speaking in antagonizing labels
There are some people who aren’t worth convincing though. And they’re called fascist sympathizers. It is not possible to convince them to change course.
In fact even using the word facist wont help, you may have better progress by getting them to agree the constitution is a marvelous document we should protect, they will agree, this is common ground, then you say something like “its a real shame it doesn’t hold the supreme court accountable for bribes though” or maybe “its a real shame that they are trying to give the executive branch unchecked power” as this is definitely not what the framers ever had in mind, its the exact opposite,. But this is how you argue stuff to affect change.
And right after that they’ll vote Trump anyways.
Great is the enemy of good, anything that gets rid of the 2 party system while allowing multiple parties can and should be supported whole heartedly.
I never said perfection was required. I am simply saying, if we are going to spend effort on election reform it should be the best option. The resources needed to run an election is pretty much the same regardless of which type it is.
It sounds like were at an impasse, I want to fix the problem before it evolves farther, but you think its already past saving, or at the very least you can only see a route to saving the country that goes through calling half the country fascists and hoping they listen.
can only see a route to saving the country that goes through calling half the country fascists and hoping they listen.
You do realize that only about 1/3rd of the country actually votes/voted for Trump, right? And of that third, not all of them are fervent supporters/outright fascists. If half of his voters are fervent supporters, that means only about 1/6th of the country is fascist, and another 1/6th sympathetic. You are overstating this.
But yeah, there is definitely an impasse with the rest.
But there are moderate republicans that have voted red for so long they cant vote blue because of habit and endless rhetoric. While they are facist sympathizers in that they vote red with their ehad in the sand, wether they know it or not, what do you gain by calling them that? Nothing really, its just inflammatory, and it will drive them farther towards the facist ideology as it will be the only place that will accept them.
Hard disagree. You should look into how to change peoples minds, because if you start by calling them a facist sympathizer its over. This is the biggest reason I’m against this kind of speech, while true, that person wont identify as such, but they will recognize the attack on them, put up their guard, and then its done. If you want to convince people of stuff, you have to find middle ground with them first and then broach topics from your point of view without speaking in antagonizing labels, or find a way to show how you both actually want the same thing, its a slow process, but it requires finding common ground to approach the topics you really want to convince them on from.
This just shows how people need proof to accept things sometimes, the conversation is about changing minds and reducing polarization though, so I don’t know what point you’re trying to make with this. If its that they need to be called facists to learn, you are mistaken. Personal attacks never lead to a change of mind. You are better off showing (note: not calling, but showing) how the republican party are facists, than by calling the voters facists. In fact even using the word facist wont help, you may have better progress by getting them to agree the constitution is a marvelous document we should protect, they will agree, this is common ground, then you say something like “its a real shame it doesn’t hold the supreme court accountable for bribes though” or maybe “its a real shame that they are trying to give the executive branch unchecked power” as this is definitely not what the framers ever had in mind, its the exact opposite,. But this is how you argue stuff to affect change.
Great is the enemy of good, anything that gets rid of the 2 party system while allowing multiple parties can and should be supported whole heartedly. You cant get hung up on finding the best solution when the solution presented helps us not steer off of the cliff. But yes, we should fight for the best system, but rally behind whichever one is chosen in the end, much like every election, you wish the candidate was inline with your views, but you’ll swallow and vote for what is available anyways.
It is better than our current system, this is good enough for me, and it should be for you, but again, any system that allows for multiple parties is a good choice.
I’m not seeking to gain anything. But I do want to live in reality, and so I will call a fascist sympathizer a fascist sympathizer.
Those lifelong GOP voters were already going to end up fully in cult mode in support of fascism, or they were eventually going to snap out of it. Calling them what they are doesn’t change that.
They put up their guard 8 years ago during the 2016 election. Nothing you say to them will change anything.
There are some people who aren’t worth convincing though. And they’re called fascist sympathizers. It is not possible to convince them to change course.
And right after that they’ll vote Trump anyways.
I never said perfection was required. I am simply saying, if we are going to spend effort on election reform it should be the best option. The resources needed to run an election is pretty much the same regardless of which type it is.
It sounds like were at an impasse, I want to fix the problem before it evolves farther, but you think its already past saving, or at the very least you can only see a route to saving the country that goes through calling half the country fascists and hoping they listen.
You do realize that only about 1/3rd of the country actually votes/voted for Trump, right? And of that third, not all of them are fervent supporters/outright fascists. If half of his voters are fervent supporters, that means only about 1/6th of the country is fascist, and another 1/6th sympathetic. You are overstating this.
But yeah, there is definitely an impasse with the rest.
I misspoke, I believe you said facist sympathizers if they vote for trump previously.