This BTW is how you involve in the story the reality of what the voters think, which is an important portion of election coverage, while still upholding your basic journalistic responsibility to communicate to people what’s actually going on.
This BTW is how you involve in the story the reality of what the voters think, which is an important portion of election coverage, while still upholding your basic journalistic responsibility to communicate to people what’s actually going on.
There’s a LOT of them here I’ve debated with them and tried reasoning with them like everyone else has. They’re either total lost causes, or right-wing trolls.
Either way, their message is the same.
I’ve seen these people pop up a lot here, too.
I just assumed that this is the flavor of far-right influencing campaigns we get to see on Lemmy. Since the normal “far-right and Russia good, liberals and EU/Democrats bad because {manliness/financial elite/globalism/cabal}” angle is pretty much a lost cause here, the next best thing they can do is reduce turnout via resignation and bitterness.
That’s exactly what it is. The best way to get the left to stay home is focusing on ideological purity. They’ll suggest Biden isn’t a true leftist therefore you’re not upholding your morals if you vote for him. Then say if you do still feel the need to vote pick Cornell West or Jill Stein. It’s so obvious I have about a dozen accounts tagged now. It’s even the same tactic foreign influence used in 2016.
> They’ll suggest Biden isn’t a true leftist therefore you’re not upholding your morals if you vote for him.
biden isn’t a leftist at all
I think they’re almost all trolls. There tend to be little weirdnesses or inconsistencies in their stories if you really look at where they say they’re coming from and compare it to what they’re doing and saying. And their heart’s not really in it. There tend to be like 1 or 2 things they like to say about any given situation, and then once they’ve got their talking points in, it’s just content-free rudeness or sudden silence or them changing the subject to something else. Usually people who are interested enough in politics to talk about it to strangers on the internet have some sort of learned knowledge base in it even if it’s a little shallow or one-sided. With them it’s literally “Rail strike, union buster, QED, next topic pls.”
Trying to “win” a debate with them is obviously pure futility but I actually think it’s good for the discourse to have them around spouting this stuff for as long as they’re going to do such a crappy job at it. It’s like a politics version of Cunningham’s Law.
> There tend to be little weirdnesses or inconsistencies in their stories if you really look at where they say they’re coming from and compare it to what they’re doing and saying. And their heart’s not really in it.
can you explain this more?
How do you feel about American foreign policy in Central and South America?
this is a non sequitur.
No particular opinion about it you want to share?
I would think as a person with opinions so strong about geopolitics and America’s role in the world, that you’d be okay with enabling Hitler 2.0 to come to power in your own country because of them… you’d have some kind of opinion on it, even if it wasn’t directly relatable to any current election going on just right at this moment.
Just one of those little mysteries, I guess.
>No particular opinion about it you want to share?
no. this is a red herring, and doesn’t explain what you meant at all.
>you’d be okay with enabling Hitler 2.0
that’s a lie
Wait, have I misunderstood? Who are you planning to vote for / do you think people should vote for in the general election in November?
>Who are you planning to vote for
frankly i havent decided yet
i’ve been giving money to cornel west, but jill stein said the greens could hit 5% this year