in hindsight the addiction of some on the left to using maximal language for relatively modest policy goals was part of this too, but academics/activists talking a big game while actually wanting pretty tame reforms isn't a new phenomenon. but online flattens the context of that/exacerbates it
Comments
The problem is nonexistent or so existent I shouldn't be talking about it on social media. Quite the pickle.
2) are the only way to wake up or elicit shame in some 3) but also create a boy who cried wolf effect; i don't
know the answer here
There’s nothing on left side of the political spectrum like “Facebook Uncle tweets some lights off Long Island and now it’s a week-long Fox News push alert story and the president is personally demanding an investigation”
Just because civilians were killed doesn't mean it's a war crime! Even intentionally attacking civilians isn't, depending on the circumstances--e.g. weapons factories are basically A-OK!
So-called "Highway of Death" in '91? Also A-OK! As was sinking the Belgrano!
2) divided govt requires compromise
3) a lot of things poll well until you try to pay for them
4) good policy doesn't sell itself
5) most people want stability over radical change
6) online bubbles create echo chambers that amplify otherwise mundane issues
Meanwhile destruction & lies are being pushed out with a huge flashy(fashy?) campaign & making the (good/true/weakly presented) alternative look meh, next to it.
So when you’re selling the truth it’s best you ask yourself—how would I market this if I made it up & had to charm & convince everyone of it, despite it conflicting with what they can see with their own eyes?
and
“If you don’t already get it you’re a fuckin idiot”
also doesn’t work 🙃
those are just excuses not to have to make effort or find ways to reach people who are not you probably because of a lack of social skills idk