LogFAQs > #973314450

emblem-man posted...

I actually agree with this. If in order to "persuade" these independent voters so that they vote for my candidates and policies, I have to butter them up and stoke the right emotional cords in them, then I will do it. Even if it means I have to swallow every ounce of ego and dignity that I have.

But do not misunderstand me here...I think it's fucking insulting not just to the intelligence of the independent voters, but also to the minority group that depends on these policies passing. I speak more about this in my post earlier (post #79).

People are emotional, I fully agree. People can be told and shown credible facts that a policy is beneficial to them and others, but you say it in the wrong tone, and it doesn't matter anymore. It's stupid, but it's how we are. But this is not a trait or method of argumentation that we should be advancing and giving credence to. All this talk about persuasion and having logical debates when in the end you're (not you specifically Joe) just trying to use your own version of emotional rhetoric. It's all fucking rhetoric. Don't feel high and mighty because you deem yours to be "logical"

Thank you for your response, and your acknowledgement of the utility of pragmatism.

To your other points: I disagree that it is all rhetoric. I also disagree that what is necessary is an insincere "buttering up". To me, most on the left (or at least the semi-far left types on say this forum or twitter) seem almost repulsed at the idea of showing anything but contempt for somebody not 100% on their side.*

Even in your response, (and I consider you a very calm and reasonable person), there seems to be a clear indication that talking with and hiding your contempt for independent voters nearly makes you sick.

Granted, you may be picturing a person who is entertaining far-right talking points. In which case your response might make sense. But if you are picturing somebody who agrees with you on everything but "transwomen in sports", or agrees with you on everything except "under-18 trans related surgical interventions", is that person still really that bad in your ideas?

I'm genuinely curious, where for you the line between "person I happen to disagree with" ends and "person who disgusts me with their views but I must pander to if I want to achieve progress" begins. Because for some people in this topic, it feels like that line is about 1-inch from where their opinions are. I'm not accusing that of you, because I genuinely find you measured and reflective, but I am curious, if you are comfortable sharing. Where that line is for you?

PS: *=For the record, many many many many people on the right are like this too.