Alexandria Ocasio Cortez - "Not All Dems Are The Same"

[KillerB88]

Strengthening and widening your base isn't done by sloganeering properly. People have to really be understanding and willing to fight to change the underlying policies. It takes a deeper education and morality which is harder work than coming up with the right slogan.

You need both. Branding is necessary to bring middle of the road folks into the fold and to put pressure on any opposition from talking a public stance against the movement. Of course people who were already on our side wouldn’t care either way. But that’s why you think the name doesn’t matter. We’re black. We were going to support this whether it was called BLM or ALM. But ALM would have been strategically more powerful. But this is what happens when you lack core Black leadership to guide these sorts of things. Instead we got a grassroots movement from well meaning people not really capable of seeing the big picture. Then it got too big and they had the movement co-opted by the BLM organization that used it as a Trojan horse for LBGT and Black women’s rights.

 

[storyteller]

Change the slogan and they'll change the bad faith attack. Idk how new people are to this whole thing, but it's never actually been about the slogans. It's about blurring the message and repeating the BS until people get confused. It doesn't even matter if you run away from the slogan, because they'll strawman your goals anyway. The goal is to mislead and no matter what rhetoric you choose, it won't change the bad faith nature of what they're trying to do.

 

[nyknick]

 

[mastermind]

Change the slogan and they'll change the bad faith attack. Idk how new people are to this whole thing, but it's never actually been about the slogans. It's about blurring the message and repeating the BS until people get confused. It doesn't even matter if you run away from the slogan, because they'll strawman your goals anyway. The goal is to mislead and no matter what rhetoric you choose, it won't change the bad faith nature of what they're trying to do.

Indeed. They don’t believe in funding social programs at the expense of the police. Same way they don’t believe in reducing the military budget. Gotta call it what it is at a certain point.

 

[Pressure]

Change the slogan and they'll change the bad faith attack. Idk how new people are to this whole thing, but it's never actually been about the slogans. It's about blurring the message and repeating the BS until people get confused. It doesn't even matter if you run away from the slogan, because they'll strawman your goals anyway. The goal is to mislead and no matter what rhetoric you choose, it won't change the bad faith nature of what they're trying to do.

The problem isn't the bad faith attacks from the right. It's more about it being off putting to those on the left who aren't anti-law enforcement.

 

[God Almighty]

The problem isn't the bad faith attacks from the right. It's more about it being off putting to those on the left who aren't anti-law enforcement.

Wait, you're pro law enforcement?

 

[Pressure]

Wait, you're pro law enforcement?

Bad faith posting. Not surprising.

 

[storyteller]

The problem isn't the bad faith attacks from the right. It's more about it being off putting to those on the left who aren't anti-law enforcement.

I'd argue that painting defunding the police as anti-law enforcement is itself a product of bad faith attacks. I want to make policing safer and easier personally.

Edit: Just to elaborate a bit, they'd be responding to less calls and money going toward budgets that are proactively preventive (early interventions, mental health, etc) would reduce crime in a way that ought to make everyone safer citizen and police alike.

 

[God Almighty]

No one:

Higher Learning shytposters: "BAD FAITH!"

 

[AnonymityX1000]

I'd argue that painting defunding the police as anti-law enforcement is itself a product of bad faith attacks. I want to make policing safer and easier personally.

Yeah, Defund the Police is trying to help them kill less people unnecessarily thus improving the police force. Anyone pro-law enforcement would be into Defund the Police unless they are purposely misinterpreting what the term means.

 

[Pressure]

I'd argue that painting defunding the police as anti-law enforcement is itself a product of bad faith attacks. I want to make policing safer and easier personally.

Edit: Just to elaborate a bit, they'd be responding to less calls and money going toward budgets that are proactively preventive (early interventions, mental health, etc) would reduce crime in a way that ought to make everyone safer citizen and police alike.

I'm aware of what defunding the police means and if you check my posting history you'll see I'm supportive of the aims behind the movement.

But the fact remains, it's bad slogan largely because most people using it aren't calling for the eradication of law enforcement which, if taken literally is what defunding the police would do.

Pro choice for example means your okay with abortion, but it saves you from the clouded nuance, by just being able to say, "I think that's a woman's decision. It's her body."

 

[storyteller]

I'm aware of what defunding the police means and if you check my posting history you'll see I'm supportive of the aims behind the movement.

But the fact remains, it's bad slogan largely because most people using it aren't calling for the eradication of law enforcement which, if taken literally is what defunding the police would do.

Pro choice for example means your okay with abortion, but it saves you from the clouded nuance, by just being able to say, "I think that's a woman's decision. It's her body."

I'm not arguing that the slogan is good or bad. I'm saying regardless of the slogan's simplicity, there will be bad faith responses.

That's why you can say something as straight forward as "I think that's a woman's decision. It's her body" and you're pro-choice. But they don't respond as anti-choice, they claim pro-life instead.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

Medicare for All is a slogan I think everyone who isn't just straight up evil can get behind. Medical coverage for all people is nothing but roses and sunshine but people still in bad faith argue against it for whatever made up reason. It's not about the slogan, the opposition will demean it.
Social security taken literally means your social circle or society in general is secure but people took the time to find out the definition and accept as something 'good'.
If you are operating in good faith you won't take a term pols didn't even make up and bash them over the head with it.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

Look at this pol successfully back down media and their bad faith use of the term and it's use in campaigns. It's relatively easy to do if you have the will to do so.

 

[FAH1223]