Okay, yeah, I get it now. I think we agree. That's what I was saying originally, it's that they skipped Step 1, the part about deciding on the substance behind the slogans.
SwingingTheLamp
joined 2 years ago
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Harris's message was along the lines of (from a Lemmy comment, TBF), "address disparate health care outcomes that predominantly impact Black men." Nobody even knows what that means, much less has the ability to remember it. Or, she had some talking point about a several-thousand-dollar tax credit. (I don't recall how much or for whom.) That is, they talked like policy wonks, not in terms like "dignity" and "providing for your family" that reach people emotionally.
Their opponents said highly memorable-but-evil things like, "Haitian immigrants are eating the pets." I mean, like that, but good. Or, when you think of Obama, there's one word that immediately comes to mind. Like that.
ETA: I just remembered one of Harris's other leitmotifs for the campaign: "We're not going back." Just awful messaging. Democrats constantly, constantly, go for the negative formulation, which is terrible messaging. For one, saying you're not your opponent lets your opponent control the terms of the debate. Also, our memories and subconscious minds are bad with negatives. Like the famous pink elephant example, if I were to say, "I'm not a professional dogcatcher," a week from now, you might have the vague recollection of u/SwingingTheLamp and dogcatchers, or maybe just dogs. If I were smart, I'd say, "u/SwingingTheLamp is such a sexy guy" instead.
This particular example doesn't suffer from that problem, but on the other hand, it doesn't say anything of importance. So we're not going back, great, we already knew that, but where are we going? It doesn't say anything emotionally-impactful about the future and Harris's role in it. By contrast, "make America great again" is much better slogan, because it makes a promise about the future. And a vague one, so you can seamlessly fill in whatever you think "great" looks like, and you can actually envision a perfectly-tailored picture of the future. Harris == discontent about the past; MAGA guy == good-feels about the future.
I've been thinking about sharing my rule for making Lemmy a better place by having more discussions, and keeping even the arguments respectful:
Never tell another person what they are/think/believe/want.
The rule of thumb is just like in intimate relationships: Use "I" statements instead of "you" statements. Don't tell people "you obviously think..." or "you support..." or "you are..." Yes, that applies even to racists, transphobes, tankies, everybody. At best, it will never change the other person's opinion, because everybody is the hero of their own story. At worst, other people judge you to be the asshole. If somebody is truly vile (like Neo-Nazis), disengage. It's up to the community moderator or instance admin to remove them.
-
Figure out what they stand for, stated in two sentences. (From that old chestnut that says that you don't understand a thing if you can't explain it in two sentences, or less.)
-
Learn from the experts (PR people, psychologists, neuroscientists, screenwriters, etc.) how to state it in ways that resonate with people.
-
Then, do it. Convince all of us that they care, and are trying. Build coalitions around the message, and strengthen civil society.
The greatest damage from this administration's lawlessness does not come from tearing down government agencies, it's the corrosive effect of hopelessness in the minds and hearts of the citizens as we look around and feel like we're alone, and that nobody else actually cares about our laws, traditions, and principles.
In my experience learning Windows 10 for my job, the results of searching for how to do something are: 'click-this' tutorials that don't work because Microsoft changed something in the next edition, editing the registry, or PowerShell commands. The registry editing sometimes doesn't work because Microsoft changed something. The PowerShell method is the way to go, because Microsoft has embraced the command line.
Oil lamps. They have the same appeal that's behind the resurgent popularity of vinyl records. They're hefty, kinesthetic items that feel good in the hand. There's a little ritual that goes into using them. There's the sensory appeal. I bought a Thomas & Williams miner's lamp that was said to have been a prize that the original owner won in a regatta in the 1920's. It's all shiny brass, with a heavy, solid feel, and the parts fit together with such a satisfying precision. There's feeling the heat of the flame, and the slight scent of kerosene that it emits.
(Although, I'm not sure that they're outdated, since they're still manufactured and sold as yacht lamps, and you can still get parts. Last month, I ordered a brand new glass chimney for it.)
I felt the same way about the Hulu episodes until Quids Game, which I just straight-up hated, at first. No real connection to the larger premise, just torture porn in the form of weird aliens playing with/killing off the familiar characters.
Later, it hit me: The episode is a meta-commentary on the Hulu seasons. The "quids" are self-insert characters for the writers, poking fun at themselves. They aren't doing a coherent storyline with this reboot, they're just playing with familiar characters in different scenarios, and wringing out a few new jokes in a way that they couldn't do with the established canon. In a way, it's Futurama fanfic by Futurama writers.
From that perspective, I've found the reboot a lot more enjoyable. The good parts are a bonus, and the duds are forgettable.
"Good" isn't a natural phenomenon that just needs a little space to establish a foothold. It takes deliberate action, effort, and sacrifice. And society doesn't magically reach a stable state. That's ridiculous.
Each election may have a bad and a worse outcome, but it's relative. Voting for the less-bad is a strategy that works even when both parties push toward evil. It works even when the choices are a party that supports genocide quietly and one that supports genocide loudly. If the "practical left" is just voting for the less-bad, while shitting on and shunning the people trying to do the hard work because the magical Fairy of Good hasn't yet shown up to establish that foothold with a wave of the wand, then I question how practical and how left that faction actually is.