political evangelism

is this a very american impulse or whats it all about lads

i didnt make it a poll. nor a classic/dud

there will be no option to defend this absolutely awful impulse.

So if I understand rightly you mean political activism? Obtuse even by dmac standards

hate that accusation more every time jim

but especially so to simply pretend to either understand, or not, the point

activism? id have fuckin said activism wouldnt i?

but come lets facilitate a conversation so that i can talk at you until you agree with my viewpoint

i brought pie!

Perhaps define what you mean then?

People posting with a pov that they think is "right" and hope others will agree with? Half the posts on here (ilm probably more than anywhere else) are like that surely

heh

essentially what i just proposed above

talking at people about politics

in the american system, about yr candidate, i guess

about how wonderful they are etc

until the talkee agrees that you are right

ive seen this come up a few times in the yank threads and its struck me as v yank, vv strange

activism covers a lot more ground, im referring to the acceptance that its ...acceptable is obviously too strong a word to be picked up correctly....to treat another person, a group of people, so explicitly as a mark in a political context

it strikes me as profoundly different to how for instance its done here

i mean it isnt done here. it would v likely be considered bad manners, very presumptuous, condescending, whatever

and to my knowledge its not a feature of uk political custom for joe soap to consider it a duty to talk at people to sales pitch for their vote

candidates yes, obv, party members and volunteers ok, when knocking on doors.

but in the way i see it being tossed around with the yanks, idk, it seems a feature ive not noticed elsewhere.

maybe im overspotting it with the yanks, underspotting it in uk or elsewhere, or maybe eg twitter has been the harbinger of "we're all activists now, and i shall spread my chosen word" but irl or whatever

if ive imagined it all, so be it, but we still need to stop calling everythin i say "obtuse" or i will start turning up at people's places and sitting down with them and kicking their fucking arses.

ill bring pie!

you probably don't have any streetcorners to do democracy on in your country

xp somewhat! but its not "hoping", its a mission. vocation. kind of thing.

uh should i have noted that evangelism was (obv to me tbh) in a behavioural not religious sense?

take that as understood everyone kthx now can we all turn to page 4, and kathleen will bring in the lemonade after we all read through the first four policy points

xp cornerboys is a prohibited perjorative in our parliament fyi

hmmm this was obtuse wasnt it.

fuckit.

maybe something will still come of it.

more opaque maybe.

oblique, well yes certainly.

are you talking about what ppl do on the internet? It’s the internet.

irl, on an organised basis or waiting for yr chance at work, or over a beer with the guys, or at the bbq on saturday whatever

most americans aren't like ilxors ime

No way.

xp cornerboys is a prohibited perjorative in our parliament fyi

though tbh I have not noticed this to the extend you clearly have? I mean I grew up in an extremely argumentative family and getting angry and childish about politics seems understandable to me, esp when you consider what an effect it has on people’s lives. We aren’t exactly covering ourselves in glory in the UK thread half the time either.

Their president is Donald Trump, yours is Michael D. Higgins, we don't have one. Lock thread.

Electing a head of state as a replacement for George III probably does have something to do with it.

when one encounters a situation one believes to be intolerable, one does the best one can to remediate it

in america differences of political opinion are pretty intolerable. our available options for coping tend to boil down to (a) evangelism or (b) dank guillotine memes.

https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--jmBDSNaq--/c_crop,x_10,y_10/c_fit,h_1109/c_crop,g_north_west,h_1260,w_1008,x_-87,y_-76/co_rgb:000000,e_colorize,u_Misc:One%20Pixel%20Gray/c_scale,g_north_west,h_1260,w_1008/fl_layer_apply,g_north_west,x_-87,y_-76/bo_84px_solid_white/e_overlay,fl_layer_apply,h_1260,l_Misc:Art%20Print%20Bumpmap,w_1008/e_shadow,x_6,y_6/c_limit,h_1134,w_1134/c_lpad,g_center,h_1260,w_1260/b_rgb:eeeeee/c_limit,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1538413999/production/designs/3241646_0.jpg

i recognize that is a dank evangelion meme but i'm not actually sure what the difference is between evangelion and ranma 1/2 so i'm not sure i understand the reference

political evangelion

oh! i get it now, thank you

is this about the bernie safespace? That thread is bonkers.

is this about the bernie safespace?

Mr Bernie Safespace

Bernard, Save Space

its definitely not about argument (trans. from irish: "discussion"!) gyac.

I'm happy to entertain the possibility that i have picked this notion up but that it may be just selective, projective, an interpretation based on gaps & moments glimpsed in a context that differs from ours

the nub of it sits with the idea i have of ppl thinking about how to prepare and present their political views to others (these latters not volunteering explicitly for any such purpose) in order that these latters see the light of your own particular wisdom

if you look at it simply as discussion, as argument, as entering the public arena determined that your voice is part of the exchange, i don't think thats what im talking about.

politics mattering to people can be taken as universal, i think. thats not to say its all equal in effect to all ppl all the time, thats clearly not the case, but we're solipsistic beings and deal in relatives at macro and personal level.

ill return to the concept of acquaintances- of whatever remove and relationship- being viewed as political 'marks', units who need their different views shaped or their vote intention changed, and that one's attempts to do so are imma say "normal"

where im from, gyac can attest, we talk about politics a lot, we disagree a lot about things that matter a lot- i think that if someone caught a sniff of you approaching them with the above intent or maybe *viewing them* as lesser in agency than you in the discussion, or viewing the holy activity of *arguing politics* as a mapped process with an end goal determined in advance by one controlling party, youd be clocked twice, first conceptually then possible physically.

i fully accept that the polarisation of us politics is severe at present, stakes are high.

if i havent made it all up, i don't think that in itself explains this approach, though.

im not sure whether the bernie safespace refers to

i. a space where bernie supporters can discuss things under agreed safe space for berniebros guidelines

or

ii. a thread where people click into it and read it and then demand it become a safe space to which other guidelines must be applied

its very interesting tho, i like it

lengthy campaigning cycles def make things intolerable gyac

the president is a totally different role in each society tom

anyway, even if we agree that im making it all up, you have to acknowledge that in my head its very strange

i have not yet put my finger on any one thing about the uk pol thread method of.....

well it isnt argument, and it isnt out to convince anyone of anything (accepted discussion or sprung evangelism)

.....about the uk pol thream method of existing in its current form

Some people are just not good at thinking through and presenting their ideas to others. Or even do it differently or come at it from different angles or perspectives and depending on which you can get people’s backs up or piss them off? I def have an occasional tendency to make a point irl (that I have logically thought through in my head) as 1-2-5 and then people are like “whaaaa” but that’s a communication issue that can be sorted out.

Idk if any of that is what you meant

The Berners thread as I see it is a thread to collect memes and excitement. That can easily veer into evangelism except it's not as serious as all that even though in it's substance it touches on matters that are central to our lives.

(Corbyn had something like that kind of excitement but actually UK left twitter isn't as good on jokes.)

UK left twitter isn't as good on jokes.

Which, nonetheless, didn't stop people clogging up the UK politics thread with their hilarity.

I work from a baseline that at least 85% of politicians are scum of the earth who even if you put them all in death pits would be easily replaced by more scum of the earth. I have 40 odd years of experience of living in social housing poor areas, working in social housing poor areas, working as a betting shop manager and seeing first hand how the bottom half live and die. I don't need to debate with anybody, especially a worthless fucking cockroach like Fred! Maybe it is a form of evangelism but I have deeply held beliefs that are part of my very being and I'm an angry old self-righteous twat as well which I thought might have abated a bit as I get older, but it is actually getting worse!

Lol Tom I tried my best to bring the best!

Is it even that, I mean I would have said you are more affected by day to day policy by many people reading that thread, you have literal skin in the game! Think it’s pretty understandable to get annoyed with someone completely unaffected offering their thoughts on something they don’t know or care much about.

xp I didn’t, it’s not my fault that Tom is an even dourer Scot than my two favourite Scots of all time.

:D

alexes ferguson and salmond imo

The Berners thread as I see it is a thread to collect memes and excitement.

heeeee

i'd say the crux of it is the deep sense of indignation that is so ingrained in american discourse, tho this doesn't strike me as one of the worst manifestations of it

im burrowing in and out of threads like the dilettante rat i am and also bleevitornot quite busy so apols for dropping and dashing

but im specifically not referring to online behaviour

ogmor, as maybe the only person not to question what i mean

and thats not a drag at anyone, include me in that throng

do you know what i mean by this, or are you talking about something else

nb

this is exactly the type of earnest, but very uncertain, discourse the world needs and i will die on that hill

UK comedy left twitter has its funny moments. I was roaring with laughter at Trevor Bastard's "feral children masturbating into the Diana memorial fountain" one night. But a lot of them have an innate smugness that isn't conducive to hilarity. But hilarity isn't everything.

alexes ferguson and salmond imo

xxp it's the individualism thing again right? I don't object to it as much as you do, I mean it's tiresome but aren't we all.

i need that explained

im as dim as everyone says when theyre annoyed at me

i merely object in the strongest terms to accusations that its intentional

same reason they love courts and shooting each other and saying "uh...no??". their sacred personhood is constantly being affronted and they are Tired Of This Shit

is this a basketball reference bechance

^ slam-dunk

crimsonking.jpg

Alex Salmond isn't dour! Though he might be these days.

if anything he is overburdened by joie de vivre, and feels compelled to try to share it with women around him in extremely problematic ways

I saw Triumph of the Will this morning. Political evangelism is not a new thing, nor was it invented in the US.

im sure it wasnt, i only see of it as much as i do in observing/reading yank threads

id certainly be interested in the history of it as it moves from whichever other cultures through american history until the current form, if triumph of the will serves as a vehicle for such a case?

I'm still not entirely sure what you're talking about, but I think what you're saying could be explained as a shift from 'let's elect someone who really represents our interests in parliament' to 'let's elect someone who can fulfill our historical destiny'. Does that make sense?

It would be helpful to provide examples maybe

Like... the speeches in Triumph of the Will?

nah nah the evangelism is in the method, not in the goal as such (or, perhaps, not in the "type of goal" is a better expression of it)

hi wins, not really, anything offered would necessarily trace back to an ilxor asking innocent enough questions on their own politics thread, and anyone who constantly referred to my wonderings as "obtuse" would continue to do so in any case.

also its ok that its a wandering thread

quite nice, actually

I saw Triumph of the Will this morning.

taking the high road on this one, hope you're all proud of me

Nothing like a bit of Nazi propaganda to set you up for the day ahead.

something something Pixar retrospective something something

lads

you can't start a thread like this and not expect a little knockabout

A remake must surely be on the cards.

It's because clips are used in A Hidden Life. But yeah, it was a bad idea anyway. We had a discussion of German politics at lunch in the office. I made a pregnant woman cry...

made a pregnant woman cry...

taking the high road on this one, hope you're all proud of me

I watched A Hidden Life t'other night as well, would recommend it. Some quite memorable top drawer Malick there.

made a pregnant woman cry...
taking the high road on this one, hope you're all proud of me

― Homegrown Georgia speedster Ladd McConkey (bizarro gazzara), 11. februar 2020 14:23 (two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

I blame Hitler

Or Thatcher. One of the two.

you can't start a thread like this and not expect a little knockabout

― Todd Phillips, party auteur (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 11 February 2020 13:21 (five minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

yebbut youve to treat green shoots gently innit

oh now it's hitler to blame is it, interesting

Anyways, darragh, I agree that it's the method that is important, but the method changes when the goal changes. And the message changes. And it's not to say Hitler is like Sanders (or the many centrist parties that keeps popping up in Denmark promising to do things a 'new way', thereby saving the country from destructive political infighting) but you hear the 'evangelism' when the election of a candidate is no more about which policies will be passed, but instead on what the election will 'mean'. And you heard it as well with Obama and Hilary, for other reasons. The fight becomes a fight for a historical milestone, and the message changes into a more evangelistic one.

anyway re: evangelism, to me the political seems equivalent to the religious in a couple of regards:

- if you believe your faith carries sufficient consequences for all and sundry and you have a general sense of concern for the welfare of the species/the planet/the universe as a whole then it seems like for a certain kind of believer evangelism is a necessary moral imperative, and i get that and can at least kinda respect the imperative even if the method is an annoyance

- the method is an annoyance because what kind of sap wants to be sold anything?

- the evangelist doesn't have to have the kind of bedrock incurious certainty that i think darragh is suggesting, but no doubt it helps

- it's a very strange way to carry on interactions with your fellow human beings unless you're getting paid for it

- aren't an awful lot of people trying to evangelise on some shite or other? caveat emptor and if you stop to listen to the pitch it's kind of on you imo

i would also suggest re: Fred's point that in the political sphere the history and nature of mass politics is always centred on "historical milestones"; only technocracies really care about policy, universal suffrage requires the big hazy picture

oh fred, no

nv otoh has almost nailed it, reading that has kinda firmed it up for me tbh

only thing id niggle at is "on the pitch"

the rules of engagement are different to one party (not in the political sense, an individual i mean) decides that another party (not in the political sense, an individual i mean) needs to be earnestly snakeoiled into agreement/action

yeah i got that too but didn't think to express it - it's the same as salesman tho really imo, anybody who views another person as some kind of mark is selling something and really that's the vilest of professions in my personal opinion

i guess every salesman assumes some kind of superiority to the mark but the evangelist has often already made a mark out of themself i guess

if the pitch is a framework of both people showing up and the idea of discussing politics is to armwrestle verbally and the point is winning then that may be something to look at as part of the culture i dont get

really what you're asking is "what kind of sociopath would behave like this?" and i'm thinking "well the world is full of sociopaths, what kind of masochist would sit and listen to one?"

xp yes to both

but i dont wanna call it vile in context

i mean we havent even established its happening

but def you're getting what im getting at imo

Inasmuch as evangelism is the attempt to convert another human to your belief system, I would say that it is on the decline in American politics since they have devolved into more of an us vs them game where the other must be eliminated rather than converted. A 2 party system funded by corporations is far less motivated to change your mind on issues than it is to create an environment where you have no other choice but to support them.

xp

i thought we were talking about "brainworms" kind of thinking where the mark often hasn't asked for a political discussion and is kind of lured into one even when often enough they're happy to express their beliefs quite stridently should the topic arise by accident. like who takes it upon themselves to go and convert the heathen when the heathen looks like they're doing fine thank you?

i don't wanna call anyone a sociopath!

i kinda want to check that theres hints that ppl think that this is a thing to do, and wonder what culturally has sent them to do so....without thinking that its a little bit eh whats the word

not sociopathic anyway. i said presumptuous thats probably a loaded term too and it chides when id rather it shouted "fuck off" tbh

nv what term am i looking for

evangelism! missionary work

ha

yknow what

im not sure theres a more loaded way of fuckin putting it neither but ....

when i first started working at a SureStart in one of the team meetings people were talking aims and objectives and i remember (as a v junior member) timorously putting my hand up and saying "we're not missionaries" because some of those folks - and a certain kind of social care professional is just as prone to this as yr convinced leftists - sounded like they thought working class people were baby hottentots

in a political context maybe this is kinda "Leninists vs Anarchists" but that's probably a path best avoided

should make absolutely clear that this isnt abt leftists, ive been enough in the states and around em that the "foghorn testing practice here" sticker on my back was visible to ppl across the spectrum

v happy for the thread to serve as scratchpad for all and any personal projections obv

yeah i meant more in terms of Lawful vs Chaotic in general

i mean broader, it's something to do with treating people as ends in themselves maybe

the evangelist is weird in this regard because on one level the evangelism doesn't make sense unless you think people are ends in themselves but on another level the habit and practice of evangelism seems like a personal ego trip

oof both otm points i think

i mean

at societal level people are dots or units anyway, i think its at the more intimate level that this approach or angle starts to gimme shivers a bit

its not a feature of uk political custom for joe soap to consider it a duty to talk at people to sales pitch for their vote

it isnt?

You see, in the US you are expected to make up your mind decisively, to pick a side and stick to it and assert your certitude unwaveringly, because to do otherwise is a sign of wishy-washy weakness.

I don't really associate with people who feel that way but I know it's pretty pervasive.

Politics (beyond the local level, anyway, but oftentimes there as well) is too often a cult of personality wherein the personalities in question are a) flawed because they are human and b) deeply flawed because they've chosen to become politicians. I totally get rallying behind a candidate who best suits your own personal views, and I totally get promoting that candidate to other people whose views you think are in the same general ballpark as your own, but I don't get zealously cramming somebody down the throat of those who don't necessarily have a taste for that candidate. And wrt the dem primaries specifically, I really really don't understand people who get wild-eyed about one candidate in particular and suggest (or worse actually follow through on the threat) that they might not support someone else who gets the nomination.

The culture has done a really good job of encouraging people to divide themselves for the sake of easy conquering, is how I see it to an extent, and that manifests in all sorts of super fun ways.

I don't know if that was a coherent post. The coffee still hasn't quite kicked in.

no its a good one imo

mikeb, i dont think so, no tbh

i think theyre more like us- an argument, a discussion, not necessarily a process towards a defined end where one is convert one is moving on to the next one thanks for the corndog

Most of the political mailings I receive are basically MY NAME! MY PICTURE!: VOTE FOR ME! with very little in the way of substantive policy proposals. I have to assume they're just hoping voters will remember and default to voting for that particular name while completing their ballot.

Alex Salmond isn't dour! Though he might be these days.

deems there's a lot there to unpack and i'm not sure how best to do it as i've mostly abandoned "political discourse" years ago so i'll just tell my story here

i used to operate under the assumption that people were fundamentally rational, that we all had the same basic interests at heart, and that talking to other people about our beliefs, and listening to them talk about theirs, was an effective way of coming to mutual agreement and building a better world for everyone.

2016 shattered that belief for me, traumatically. probably the worst of it was seeing people who, though we had fundamental disagreements, seemed to be people of principle, one of those was that trump was inherently unfit to hold the office of president of the united states, go out and vote for him.

how do i reconcile that with a belief that politics is motivated by rational discourse? she voted for her team, i voted for mine, both of us will always do so, all other considerations are irrelevant. the only point of political discourse is, then, to convert someone to be on your team.

i don't believe in american exceptionalism. i don't believe that we're fundamentally unlike other people in this. either my beliefs are wrong (eminently possible) or they apply to everybody in the world.

the reason i don't engage in political discourse is because i don't have a team. well, that's a lie, my emotions put me firmly on team guillotine, but i understand rationally that team guillotine is a fucking terrible idea and no good will come of it. my choice then is to avoid politics on that scale, to see politics as a matter of not discussion but of living out one's beliefs, and of working to make friends with anybody who can be trusted with friendship. i'm certainly not on team bernie, as i can't see discussions of principle as anything other than empty talk.

Rational thought and action requires intention and work and self-awareness, not to mention a willingness to accept that one is sometimes (perhaps even often) wrong.

That shore don't sound like my America (spits into spittoon).

Alex S wouldn’t make my top 5 million favourite Scots; I am speaking of course of Fergie(who is something akin to a demigod in my family), and I haven’t read the replies I’ve missed so idc if the thread has moved on.

Fergie isn't dour either, of course, there's a definite twinkle there but, coming from Govan and not suffering fools at all, let alone gladly, he has developed a persona to keep the fools at bay and/or annoy them. Dalglish, also from Govan, is the same, though not as good at it.

what you're observing as "evangelism" is in part at least a competitive stance. "conservatives" root for the republicans the way they do their sports team. if i'm from texas, i might feel it's part of my social identity to follow NASCAR racing and root for the dallas cowboys and the republicans. if the dallas cowboys suck, i still root for them. if the republicans field a russian puppet, i still vote for them. rooting for republicans in the face of obvious incompetence and corruption becomes playacting: the more vigorous the denunciation of my team, the more rigorous my defense. it's a lot of insincere theater -- "kayfabe" is a good term for it, particularly considering the current POTUS is in the pro wrestling hall of fame

https://www.wwe.com/superstars/donald-trump

aficionados of pro wrestling know it's fake, and part of the entertainment for them is pretending otherwise, especially when talking to 'stuck up' people who try to convince them that pro wrestling is fake. the harder the skeptic goes after pro wrestling's authenticity, the more the fan digs and pretends it's real. i'm not saying that explains the entire phenomenon vis-a-vis 'political evangelism' and trump, but it helps get at the core issue

posts itt ✓

I don't think thats to the point at what i feel is differently, qualmsley , though the post certainly describes behaviours we can all recognise, def

if i were to point out that uk pols, irish pols, are not in any way strangers to divisive, partisan and yep sports-team analogy works, but that what im trying to put my finger on, and what NV has put most of his hand on, is different.

that may be a motivator (in part, anyway) but the approach in addressing the other person isnt one of other-team/fellow-team dynamics

in ukpol threads, you just call the other guy a cunt, like

thats not an invite itt, ye have many threads lads.

rush, thats a real post.

apathy at the state of politics is v understandable, anger, depression and any number of other reactions are understandable, of all possible reactions, the salesman angle is a fascinating and strange one to me, is really it

i understand fighting, i understand an under-pressure nominal left fracturing under narcissism of big differences, i don't understand an awful lot of the other urges but they dont compel me like this does

i think that the point made that "talking solves differences" has gone from cant to accepted wisdom to proven false in an american context in a marked and obviously rotten way, but i think that two notable fragments (or possibly two that i notice since the textbook on talking was burnt) are "talking had to serve my purpose else be useless" and "talking to people that have differences is bad"

thats a remarkably simplified ramble but i didnt want to leave yr post unanswered either

"talking to people that have differences is bad"

I fail to see how this is uniquely American. Exacerbated over yonder, to be sure, but this is a common trait among politically-haunted subjects of all stripes. If anything, the US's occasionally terrifying obsession with the First Amendment claims to run counter to that.

xp nothing itt is to say that politics, the effects of politics, isnt of critical importance

as well to get that bulwark up first!

xp pom i was just teasing that out as another strand, this thread is more musing about the other strand i picked out- discussion as a process mapped functional activity

"by the end of this conversation ed i really gotta have ya voting bernie, and no more of this heehawing about his record on x ok buddy?"

We know where the Americans got that from tbf.

the movie office space iirc

otherwise id rather you nominated the source

Why, from the Old World, of course – all of it, as a whole, and not any one country in particular. What did you think I meant?

i didnt!

i havent been, meself, tho i heard the craic is ninety

Canadian observer here, just excited at the idea of a socialist US president. I don't think I'd live to see Bernie do half of what he talks about (he sure won't) but that's not entirely the point. Things could use a shove in that direction.

it's really disheartening to me that things have gotten so toxic among supporters on all sides that people are scared off from all of it

michel bloompsberg for prseident

why not, we survived l'Obama

lots of "conservatives" prefer phony "political conversations" than discussion of say coronavirus and climate change. rush limbaugh and rupert murdoch are sort of the joseph addison and richard steele of late american capitalism

i think that if someone caught a sniff of you approaching them with the above intent or maybe *viewing them* as lesser in agency than you in the discussion, or viewing the holy activity of *arguing politics* as a mapped process with an end goal determined in advance by one controlling party, youd be clocked twice, first conceptually then possible physically.

a few things:
1. all electoral politics tend to get swept up into presidential elections despite the president typically having less power than congress
2. in the 12-16 months prior to a presidential election, 99% or more of american politics get swept up into the election, which concentrates an unbelievable amount of discourse in the policy and personal brands of shitty, broken politicians
3. with every passing pres election cycle the power of those brands become more powerful, which has been exacerbated more and more by social media - kamala harris' social media operation was built to mimic pop star fandom; ted cruz and mitch mcconnell promote their brands to older zoomers by being a spicy personality on twitter
4. the degree of personal association people have with candidates has exploded - nothing new with trump running a fash-y campaign, but it was also present in obama's campaign branding and arguably with GWB and his appeal to (actual religious) evangelicals. i don't have any memory of elections prior to 2000 but i have trouble imagining large amounts of people getting really personally passionate about say GHWB or Dukakis*
4a. trump's presidency has retroactively increased the degree of personal association with other politicians, and everything is a reality show now for the resistance fandom so former blandos like mitt romney can have huge face turns that were not previously available to them because their brands were impossible to care about
5. as such your support of presidential candidates now carries within it, nesting egg style, the entire universe of your personal moral beliefs
6. having all of that nested into the brand/campaign of a single politician is hideous and turns people into evangelicals with supposedly** no other pathways to affecting change in any way other than personal zealotry
7. vote for bernard sanders

not sure if that coalesces into something that works i'm making it up as i go

*though i do often remember that scene in donnie darko where maggie gyllenhaal rebelliously screams at her parents "i'm voting for dukakis!" seems ridiculous but what do i know
**not really

the general point i forgot to spell out is that it's about personal identity and like all matters of personal identity americans get really fighty about it

Yang out

For old yang syne

5. as such your support of presidential candidates now carries within it, nesting egg style, the entire universe of your personal moral beliefs

Yeah bingo

look at the heartbreak here - it's about way more than politics

just been trying to gently persuade my colleagues not to vote for keir starmer, wondering if deems wld be tutting

I will try not to lose my shit if I hear the word 'electability' at the next meeting.

it helps if you sing it to the tune of "Reproduction" from Grease 2

or that godawful Billy Bragg song, either way

my colleagues (middle aged/older working class women) quite liked RLB but the word that came up in favour of starmer was gravitas, which suggests a degree of media evangelising has already been taking place. there was already a degree of suspicion that keir might pivot right tho and they were reconsidering after we spoke abt his ominous lack of clear policy announcements.

i've got Starmer in my head bellowing "I've done deportations/For girls of many nations" now

5. as such your support of presidential candidates now carries within it, nesting egg style, the entire universe of your personal moral beliefs

Yeah bingo

― Swilling Ambergris, Esq. (silby)

it's more than that, the myth of individualism means that here in america we are prone to not just substitute group belonging for individual identity but to believe that group beliefs are our _personal_ beliefs, like in a sense of how dare you attack andrew yang, _i am andrew yang_ you dipshit! to get deeply nerdy about it* personality cults (which is all american politics in 2020 is) have some heavy skagra shit going on

* but not, apparently, nerdy enough for me to explain the reference, sorry

interesting stuff

i do think i, at least for me in the maelstrom that stands for what we have recently learned is the babble of several internal monologues, can still see the posts that itt are arguing/explaining motivation vs evangelism (as i have failed to explain it)

but the (x), silby, rush progression there is v interesting imo

it helps if you sing it to the tune of "Reproduction" from Grease 2

― Todd Phillips, party auteur (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 12 February 2020 10:27 (nineteen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

absolute banger m8

A barnstarmer.

just been trying to gently persuade my colleagues not to vote for keir starmer, wondering if deems wld be tutting

― ogmor, Wednesday, 12 February 2020 10:20 (thirty minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

maybe a little, idk

are they allowed to do the same back re RLB?

are you each allowed the same reaction to the above separate efforts?

kind of thing

xp boom

ofc, I am generally v interested to hear ppl's thinking on this sort of thing

xp so its clear that im responding to meself, like

i do try to persuade ppl that seem open to it during discussions, im not "theyre all the same" or "every belief a person holds is sacrosanct". but the context in which im doing it and etc matters

Is 'electability' bad because it tends to be weaponized by the right or is it bad, full stop?

It seems a weasel word to me, carrying the implication that why you want to govern is less important than just governing

'electability' is bad because its usually meaningless. Everyone thinks they have the most electabile wife, as someone once said. Although to be fair when questioned he said he didn't see the ballot

The left could use a Trojan horse at this point. Of course, this naïvely assumes the horse can be trusted…

I think this, and I'm fairly certain the rest of the country agrees with me, as they always do

xxp ty for saying the quiet part loud as you normally do

Is 'electability' bad because it tends to be weaponized by the right or is it bad, full stop?

'electability' is a nonsense old canard imo and often is shorthand for friends with Murdoch or has nice hair and isn't tainted by politics.

i think all of the above is in play, i also think ilx (as is its wont) considers the matter closed and decided

its not political evangelism tho

nb wenger refs ✓✓

who cares if we do? The people pushing electability get handsomely paid to shit out takes that are wildly wrong most of the time, and 99% of them will turn on Starmer anyway.

i think tbf that it would be easy to turn a thread musing about this into a ukpol/uspol thread, but ill prob try to avoid any part i might have in doing so if i can

politics is a very dirty and repetitive business, and you do need to ride a very tall horse to stay morally and intellectually above it all. but is that necessarily a good thing?

i would fully support threads on each possible spinoff discussion tho!

xp

calz, its probably ties to the (i though good) point touched on above, has the right/centre claimed/tarnished electability and has it does so successfully, etc etc

'Electability' as a term is absolutely laden with dodgy class, race and gender signifiers, even if you leave the role of the media out of it.

Problem is that most of the country seems to genuinely believe this shit and react to it, consciously or otherwise, so it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The only requirement required to get the job is that enough people in the right places want you to do it, and if enough of those people look at you and go 'hmmm, he looks electable' then they become so.

Occasionally someone comes along and creates a new archetype of electability (Thatcher, Obama etc) but Starmer is straight off the production line.

The question of 'unelectability' is a different one, I used to think this was just about not looking like you'd be a total shambolic mess of a leader, but Johnson managed to make it work so hey.

Then there's the other election of whether the traditional concept of 'leadership' is even desirable, especially on the left, but people in this country seem very attached to it so it looks like we're stuck with it and have to make the best of it.

The real secret of electability is how much of the ruling class deign to support you and far you’ll go to achieve their aims. That’s why it doesn’t matter if Johnson turns up with toilet paper stuck to his shoe or unable to say how many kids he has; the press has already priced this in and just ...doesn’t bother covering most of it because it doesn’t serve the interests of their owners. You can be sure this would change if he decided to introduce Leveson 2.

i think thats 100% otm, but also think matt is correct that leaders and movements can change what "electability" means, and that "the ruling class" might sometimes, tho not always, be wrongfooted by centre voters open to change from such leaders/movements

anyway i made a thread for this

It depends how you're defining 'ruling class' but they stuck stubbornly with the Tories throughout the 90s, it's just that most of the rest of the country gravitated towards Blair and Murdoch followed. The writing was on the wall by then and The Sun didn't want to be seen to be backing losers. Obviously Blair had a level of historical momentum on his side post-Black Wednesday, problem for Labour now is that most of the momentum is going the other way. It'll swing back eventually but not if Labour relies on guesswork about the level of demographic change, as happened last time - that's maybe where the evangelism comes in, overlooking your candidate's obvious deficiencies in anticipation of a historical wave that never arrives (or comes too late).

booming post gyac

""''electability"""

xxp true, but Black Weds was instrumental in fatally wounding that Major government, and a lot of awful Tory shits would have felt the sting on that. Of course that includes property holders and investors. It goes beyond supporting the winning team, it’s actively in their interest, esp when the New Labour policy platform was what it was. Anyway, Dan Davies always otm on this point.

Everyone seems to think that John Major became a weakened laughing stock partly because of the sheer swinging-dick brilliance of Tony Blair and partly because of "divided over Europe", but it was actually Black Wednesday and 15% base rate.

— Dan Davies (@dsquareddigest) December 16, 2019

Major correctly said he'd have lost in '97 even if he had ran against himself (or a sandbag with Tony fucking Blair written on it imo).

like

texting, what is this?

i see ilxors are signed up to text people their political beliefs.

any info gratefully accepted.

It’s canvassing

The idea is to identify who plans to vote for yer guy

Then you put that info into your database

Then the people who do plan to vote for your guy, you follow up to make sure they remember to vote

If they’re old or whatnot you might drive em to the polling place, or if they’re early voters check up to see if they voted yet

&c

No beliefs involved usually

ty!

my pleasure

in return i will answer to the best of my ability any question you would care to ask on the irish politics thread

much appreciated

I think, outside of communal griping about whatever political thing Everyone Hates, most places I'm in regularly don't have political evangelism. I'd say that professing things outright is gauche, but maybe not taboo. Complete media-saturated political circus here over a month ago, and I'm sitting at the bar listening to the bartender do a little spiel about, hey, I'm not that political, this one guy's an asshole, not worth my time to get too interested and not sure I'd even vote, etc.

strong political inclinations outside of vague "that sucks" statements aren't happening everywhere

as silby said, and as is implied in the long run-up to elections in these parts, there's a lot of direct reaching out to voters. I got the impression the UK has some door-to-door canvassing by people trying to get people out to vote for specific candidates -- is that right? texting and calling are the extension of that, because who is really home or answers their door?

wouldnt know tbh

here the actual candidates call around to houses tho

my former state rep who is now a county official did that. had other people canvassing too, but he showed up on my doorstep

he was coincidentally right in front of me in line at a movie theater the same day. haven't seen the lad in person since