a vice president can’t just change policy against the wishes of the president. Nor do they regularly deviate in public opinion.

Apologies for my lack of clarity. I was using ‘Harris’ as shorthand for ‘the Harris campaign’. I mean to ask why they wouldn’t change policy… The campaign team.

I’m not arguing that she will or won’t… only that she can’t right now regardless of her actual stance.

You’re not ‘arguing’ anything at all. You’re just declaring it to be the case with so much as a scrap of evidence offered.

All the evidence provided indicates a sizeable demographic of ex-Democrat voters who would readily vote Democrat again if they changed policy on arms sales.

No polling data from anywhere indicates that keeping arms sales is the key to the swing states.

All polling data that’s been provided indicates that banning arms sales is the key to the swing states.

So what is tying Harris’s hands exactly? Spell it out.

a ideal world GOP eats itself when Trump loses again and the DNC is now effectively replacing the GOP as the conservative party.

Best answer I’ve had yet. I’m not convinced, but at least it’s a plan with an actual mechanism that isn’t contrary to reality.

The reason I’m not convinced is that it would require politics to be far less Machiavellian than it is. All the while it’s in their best interests to have Trump-the-devil as their opponent, they’ll push that narrative, true or not. I think the Democrats will be too scared to push too far to the centre for the very reasons you’ve given, they might loose support to an actual left-wing and their donors simply won’t risk that. The Democrat’s job is to suck energy from actual left-wing campaigns. To do they they need to stay left, but not too left.

And, of course, they need to convince millions of people more progressive than they are, to vote for them regardless because “the other guy…”.

But still, I respect your plan. Hope I’m wrong, and it works.

Vote the gop out to the void and turn on the DNC next.

The question I keep asking and get no reply to is, how?

How do we “turn on the DNC next”. In your scenario, we’ve just given them the unequivocal message that they can be assured of our votes no matter what their policies are, even supporting genocide doesn’t loose them votes, so long as the Republicans are worse.

So, by what mechanism do we “turn on the DNC”?

Why would they listen to a single protest, campaign, or speech knowing that their votes are secure no matter what?

I can never tell if you people are in bad faith or just legitimately so detached from a realistic view of politics that that sounds profound to you.

Removed by mod

I have to limp my ass and beg people door to door just to fucking vote against fascism.

Rather than beg your party to adopt the policies all the data shows would actually win then this election?

What on earth makes you think the best ‘evelenth hour’ strategy is to try and persuade thousands of people to vote, but that it’s apparently “too late” to persuade a single executive to change one policy?

What kind of fucking moron tells themselves they’re going to vote for Trump because Harris might continue to support Israel?

What kind of fucking moron tells themselves that the quickest way to keep Trump out of power is to try and persuade thousands of “fucking morons” not to be morons anymore, rather than persuade one rational and intelligent strategy team to change policy?

It’s the sickening how you sycophants will hold nothing back in abuse toward you fellow citizens (whose vote you’d presumably like), but defend to the hilt every decision of your cult leaders.

And you wonder why America gets Trump?

Well, no, it doesn’t mean that either, but I get the point anyway. You’re not here to defend your position, that’s fine. It’s not obligatory.

It’s a damn good assumption as I also could shit out a few dozen links after one Google search, too.

It’s not, though. That’s the point. Finding sources to back an unpopular opinion is, by definition, trawling through Google to find them. If you disallow that, you disallow unpopular opinion. Epistemological integrity does not simply oblige us to believe whatever view had the most sources, it’s not dishonest to have a gut feeling about something and check that it is reasonable, based on finding supporting evidence. It’s the mainstay of all academic essaying, for example. It’s normal to check one’s opinion is reasonable, we don’t all arrive at an issue with blank slates to fill and if you think you do, you’re lying to yourself.

Epistemic responsibility is about changing that initial view if it is overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary, it’s not about updating it according to some popularity contest. Truth is not decided by vote.

So searching through Google to find sources supporting your view is perfectly reasonable so long as the sources found are valid and reputable. That indicates it is reasonable to continue to hold your view. It doesn’t matter if a greater number of equally reputable sources present the opposing view because truth is not determined by popular vote.

If he does “do his research” and happens to have a list of links at the ready, that is just weird or it’s someone with a motive other than showing how smart they are

So damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.

You’re familiar, I assume, with the self-immunised argument?

dissent with bad information is just poor form

It is. Unless the dissent is over whether the information is ‘bad’, in which case evidence must be brought to bear to support arguments to the contrary. No doubt this poster would not simply agree their information was ‘bad’, so that is the point over which you disagree. Again, assuming it’s bad when that’s the very point of disagreement is begging the question.

“despite increasingly popular opinion” is supposed to convince me of something based on the rumored opinions of what?

I was merely commenting on the increasingly popular move of repeating things back in alternating capitals aS iF tHaT pRoVeD aNyThInG At All.

Addendum:

Basically, some people’s initial view on some matter will coincide with that of the mainstream. They’re lucky. The evidence supporting their view will be plastered over every newspaper and government announcement. They won’t have to do any digging to support it since quality newspapers are (generally) reputable sources.

Others, however, will form a contrary initial opinion. They are not so lucky since, by definition, sources supporting their view will be less well disseminated. They will have to actively search.

Doublely unlucky if that view happens to oppose US policy because the US’s many enemies will also be seeking out such evidence to use in their propaganda.

Triplely unlucky these days because conspiracy theorists and online cultists are also looking for dissenting evidence to add credence to whatever bullshit they’re spouting.

But a healthy democracy requires that neither of these issues is used to simply smear all dissenting opinion. Otherwise we just have a monolith.

Dissent is not spouting off Russian propaganda verbatim

Why not? If Russia finds information which is opposed to the US/NATO position they will use it in their propaganda. It follows that anyone dissenting from the US/NATO position may also use the same information.

Something being part of foreign propaganda doesn’t mean it’s false. Propaganda isn’t just lying. If the US had done something wrong, you can guarantee Russia would use it in their propaganda. They don’t just lie about everything. They lie about things they want to hide, but if the truth helps their cause they’ll tell it. It follows from this that some Russian propaganda is likely to be true (unless you want to make the case that the US never does anything wrong, or successfully hides it from Russia in all cases).

Dissent is also not searching for every internet based opinion piece with a flashy headline that aligns with a specific view.

That’s true it isn’t. But you’ve no evidence at all that this is what’s happening here other than that the resulting opinion is a dissenting one.

If you simply assume all evidence for dissenting opinion must have been derived this way purely on the grounds that the view it supports is not a mainstream one, then you have a self-immumised argument. The antithesis of rational thought.

It is a structural necessity of dissenting opinion that it be based on fewer sources. If you deny the ability to present sources simply on the grounds that they are select, then you deny dissent, because dissent, by necessity, will be based on select sources. Opinion based on majority sources is, by definition, majority opinion (among a rational community).

Dissent is actually showing, to the best of ones abilities, real cause for action.

No, it isn’t. Because whether a cause is a ‘real’ cause is the matter over which there is disagreement, so it is begging the question to only allow those causes you consider ‘real’ into a discussion about which causes are ‘real’. You preemptively clear the field of all dissenting opinion before the debate even begins.

To properly use these articles, you have to dig. You need to understand the authors, the sources and the motivation. Again, link-boy is likely not doing this

As before, you’ve no evidence this hasn’t been done other than that the resulting opinion is a dissenting one. If your proof that sources are inadequate is solely that they are used to support a dissenting opinion then you have by definition denied dissenting opinion.

You want to get all script-flippy about “sPeAkiG diSsEnT” when the people “dissenting” don’t know what the actual fuck they are posting with.

Unfortunately, despite increasingly popular opinion to the contrary, putting an argument into alternating capitals doesn’t make it go away.

Look up ‘empirical’. It doesn’t mean ‘point of view I agree with’.

So. Out of interest. Which alternative to presenting a dissenting opinion and sourcing it, would you prefer?

1. Not presenting any dissent at all - the only opinions posted should be ones that agree with the mainstream view?

2. Present a dissenting opinion, but don’t provide any evidence for it?

3. Present a dissenting opinion but then provide evidence supporting the mainstream opinion instead?

Dissenting opinion, by it’s very nature, has fewer sources, that’s the whole point of it being ‘dissenting’, as such the character of any set of resources supporting it will be one of having “trawled through” a load of sources presenting the opposing, mainstream view.

By suggesting that any argument whose sources display that character is to be ignored, you’re arguing that we should live in a society with no dissent from mainstream opinion.

Is that the sort of society you think Ukraine are fighting for?

It’s explained nearly every time this comes up.

It’s so disheartening to see society descend into this monolithic, unthinking, blob.

An argument doesn’t become an ‘explanation’ just because you agree with it.

People have made their case. I’ve disagreed with it and given reasons. That’s how rational debate works (or at least it used to in better times).

What’s happening here is people are disagreeing about a matter and exchanging reason why they reached their differing conclusion.

It’s not one party ‘explaining’ some fact to another. It’s not maths, people disagree. Experts disagree. It’s an open question still.

bye

?

You’ve expended less than 500 words arguing your case and you’re giving up because I haven’t capitulated in the first two replies?

Either you have a very low confidence in your persuasiveness, or a very low confidence in the strength of your argument.

What did you expect from this exchange, I unquestioningly accept the wisdom of your Delphic monologue?

Yep. You caught me. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights… Famous for their memes. Did you see the one they did with the savvy looking cat… Hilarious…

Still, I must say I’m kind of flattered that you’ve gone to the effort of hacking into my Lemmy instance, finding my identity and then trawling though my internet history to find out what I have and haven’t been posting about for the last 20 years…

States and companies must end arms transfers to Israel immediately or risk responsibility for human rights violations: UN experts

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/06/states-and-companies-must-end-arms-transfers-israel-immediately-or-risk

But hey… What do ‘UN Experts’ know, when we’ve got a proper internet rando to listen to.

Or did I ‘dO mY oWn ReAsErCh’ again…

Let me see I I can find what the New York Times approved opinion™ is…

it’s reality

Just declaring it to be ‘reality’ doesn’t stand in for an argument. I obviously disagree so if you want to have a discussion you have to forward some rational argument for your view.

Why will withholding a vote when neither candidate is acceptable not stop genocide?

You’ve simply declared that it will, but not given any reasons.

If both candidates are going to continue arms sales, then there’s no difference. The idea that Trump’s going to sell more is silly, there’s no current limit, Israel buys what they need. So the only affect I can have is in the long term.

Here, there’s two options:

Make it clear that genocide does not win votes.

Make it clear that even genocide is not going to dissuade me from voting Democrat and so give them basically a free ticket to ignore voters complety.

The former is the most likely to stop genocide.

Same goes for any other issue.

All the while you vote as if it were a duopoly, it will remain a duopoly. It’s not about getting ‘the least worst person’ into power next month, it’s about the long term value of making it clear to politicians that they cannot simply threaten us into voting for them, that they need to present policies we want in order to secure votes. Anything less and you might as well chuck democracy now. All they have to do is build up the bogeyman again and you’ll vote for them no matter what. In what way is that remotely “for the people, by the people”?

Oh. I’ve just looked up ‘sea-lion’. Jesus fucking Christ. In one thread we’ve had the argument, from supposed progressives, that;

1. Vote your government back in no matter what their policies are, just do so out of blind faith.
2. Don’t look things up for yourself, just accept what the authorities tell you without question.
3. Don’t ask for evidence or challenge this view, just accept ir without question.

This is the progressive position now?

This isn’t politics, it’s a fucking religion.

if that “guaranteed” base grows, it provides a voting offset that could allow the candidate to worry less about losing the support of less progressive voters.

Sure.

But why would they? If the base that’s ‘grown’ is guaranteed, then why shift at all? Why not have the new larger guaranteed base, and the less progressive voters. After all, the guaranteed base is guaranteed, you don’t need to do anything to get their votes.

But let’s say they want to risk it for ideological reasons (no evidence at all that this is the case, but for the sake of argument we could assume it).

You’ve still not addressed the two main questions.

1. How do they know the extra votes came from left-leaning but ‘guaranteed’ voters, and not from voters who really liked their centrist policies?

2. If they have some way of knowing (polls, focus-groups etc) then why can’t they use that way of knowing to ask about voter commitment, and make the move to the left before the election, why do they need us to actually vote first to find out if we’re in this ‘guaranteed base’?