Whats_your_reasoning

All work no play makes Jack the only coworker not invited when everyone meets up for drinks.

You’re right that Dems need better messaging and to stop catering to the ultra rich. At the same time, we can’t discount the propaganda messaging that the article mentions. Not being in their echo chambers means not being exposed to the bulk of it, and that is great. At the same time, it means being disconnected from what a lot of people are basing their opinions on.

For a few years, up until the start of this year, I had a job that required interacting with families in people’s homes. If I had a choice, I would’ve preferred to avoid the right-wingers… but gotta do what you gotta do.

Some households were pure poison: hate-driven parents who constantly belched up Fox news topics. These parents normally communicated with their kids through complaining and screaming. But if a kid made some quip about “Biden sucks,” they got a brief moment where their parents would actually laugh. The reinforcing power of that toxic dynamic cannot be understated.

It’s no wonder that a lot of kids in those circumstances end up eager to repeat the same crap their parents say. In the time that I worked that job, a lot of the commentary was Biden-centric, making him a convenient punching bag that even the smallest fists could reach (even if they had no idea what they were doing/saying.)

Dems have a lot of improvements to make, but it would take a lot more than “improved messaging” to overcome the sheer power of this propaganda culture.

That's gotta be rough. Those comments sound like they carry the same accidentally-condescending energy as telling a confused kid, "Oh, don't worry. You'll understand when you're older."

I mean, yes that's probably true, but it sounds dismissive of one's concerns and does nothing to allay the frustration they're feeling now.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure what the right response would be. Or maybe there simply isn't one?

I'm pretty sure this is it. It looks like mods straight-up razed the thread. There are comments remaining, but only after you scroll past the sea of deleted content.

I found one commenter that made a really interesting observation:

I think you and your sister have different definitions of what love means. You think love means you put up with bad behavior from your loved ones and she thinks love means you don’t behave badly towards your loved ones.

At some point they’ll start shutting down internet access to prevent recording of their actions

This is an interesting viewpoint. I think the internet is where the modern GOP has their strongest control over people. Yeah, there is traditional media, but the internet echo chambers are where a lot of their people go to express their beliefs. Shutting it all down would be severing a link that directly guides the populace’s minds. (Especially for the younger folks who don’t know a life without internet.)

Imagine no more Xitter propaganda, no more ignorant Facebook posts, no hate-inspiring memes propagating at the speed of light… Conspiracy theories and gossip would become localized again, and since the people inclined toward those things can’t independently determine reality, over time their viewpoints would inevitably diverge from each other.

I mean, a lot of things could happen, ranging from violent reactions, to increased empathy (from being forced to interact with diverse neighbors in-person.) But without a central command link, a brain to tell them what to believe, the tribal nature of their supporters would invariably cause fractures within their own base.

(At least, one can hope.)

I learned this word in a rather unusual way. One day as a bored teenager, I was sitting around thinking of funny sounds that could pass as real words. “Moot” came into my head and, out of curiosity, I decided to look for it in a dictionary.

Needless to say, it became a new favorite. Moot. Moot. All these years, and it still sounds funny to me.

Owl: ‘lo, Sun.

Sun: Hi, Owl!

Owl: Ugh, I forgot how cheery you always are.

Sun: Well, yeah! It’s important to look on the bright side!

Owl: Um. Sure. Anyway, I gotta go get breakfast.

Sun: Oh, have fun!

Owl: Goodnight, Sun.

Sun: … What’s “night”?

Yes. I also read the part of your previous post that said:

Do you want to try to explain to me how a protest that specifically targets progressive men is an effective way to get men to be more progressive?

“Just don’t be a bad guy and you won’t be the target!” This movement makes no distinction between conservative and progressive men, it is explicitly about absolute denial of sex, dating, marriage, and children.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m 100% in favor of women not dating conservative men if they don’t want to. A movement that draws attention to the fact that women have the option of breaking up with their boyfriends and divorcing their husbands would be fantastic. A movement that specifically tries to deny relationships to the people that you’re trying to deradicalize is not that.

I also read the original article, which includes:

The idea behind the movement is individual resistance against what it defines as a conservative political environment and the corrosion of reproductive rights.

You seem to have the misconception that this movement is primarily about women doing something to make an impact on men, despite there being nothing in the source stating that. "A conservative political environment and a corrosion of reproductive rights" casts a wide net, but "revenge on men" or "motivating men" are both invariably going to be a lower priority than, oh say, "not dying from a miscarriage." Makes sense, right?

There's more to being a feminist ally than simply believing in a woman's right to choose. I'd be more inclined to believe that you truly support us if you showed any sign of having considered anything that I'd said about why women are drawn to this idea, or how you may have been initially mistaken by assuming it's being done just to target men. But alas.

There are more goals than some grand, over-arching "change." On an extremely basic, self-preserving level, there is a goal of "not getting pregnant while living in a country that actively endangers the lives of pregnant women."

If it brings about change that would be awesome. But regardless of that, by swearing off relationships and sex, we're still not getting pregnant. Ergo, we are able to keep our bodily autonomy. Which, I guess I have to remind you, we would lose if we got pregnant.

Unless (non-sterilize) progressive men have some special sperm that doesn't attempt to fertilize an egg, creating an exception based on beliefs would still put our lives at risk.

For critically-panned movies that are arguably good, I recommend a scroll through this thread: [Meme] Which movie was this for you?

It's interesting to see what everyone's opinions are. I've already downloaded a few of the suggestions out of curiosity.

Although that may be effective to some, that format is too dry and science-y to tap into the people who need to be reached.

We need the power of a human being's impassioned words, presented in the context of a natural conversation, converted into a meme-able format. The simplest way would be to copy/paste the original comment and start sharing it on other platforms. If there is a way to make the message more succinct, without losing that crucial human touch that inspires people to relate to the message, that would be ideal.