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.
I have the impression quite a few Democratic voters are a bit anti-immigrant too.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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].
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.
How about the crack down on the domestic terrorists
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.
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.
Left, Left…
.
Yep and even maintaining this appearance - there’s still a large chance they won’t pull in enough red voters to beat Trump.
The idea that any one is switching tides in an environment this polarized is idiotic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
-
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.
.
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.
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.
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/
Thanks I’ll check it out!
Blue dogs:
Yeah but the other party are fascists so I’m still gonna vote for them
Why are you even using that word if it’s not attached to actions like this
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
