"Do I have to make the same point on every issue?"
😅 I know the feeling. I also feel as If I've made the following point countless times. Let's go one layer deeper.
How is societal or legal change achieved? What motivates politicians to effect change? How do minority or niche issues break into the mainstream? If you answered "public opini…
"Do I have to make the same point on every issue?"
😅 I know the feeling. I also feel as If I've made the following point countless times. Let's go one layer deeper.
How is societal or legal change achieved? What motivates politicians to effect change? How do minority or niche issues break into the mainstream? If you answered "public opinion," you are correct.
The people "running the show" didn't want women to have the right to vote or to have abortion rights (or even what's left of them). They didn't want slavery or segregation to end. At least not initially. Abraham Lincoln forcefully put down three attempts, by his own men, to end slavery. They didn't want gay marriage to be legalised. Barack Obama had to be convinced to drop his publicly stated anti-gay marriage stance.
You can effect change without persuading the extremists. None of these injustices were resolved by unanimous agreement. But you will definitely have to persuade people who are reasonable but unconvinced. The good news is, these people, on almost every issue, are the majority.
So apologies if I mischaracterised your position by implying that you're tarring everybody with the same brush as the extremists. But what you *do* seem to be doing, is arguing that because there are insane, unreasonable people out there, some of them in positions of power, persuading those who aren't in power doesn't matter. But, in fact, it's the only strategy that does matter. And it's been proven to work time and time again.
And that is exactly why control of the narrative via control of media, both official and social, is such a big deal. If extremists can sell thier view to the majority, it is no longer fringe, it becomes mainstream. That goes to the heart of many of your commentaries.
"Do I have to make the same point on every issue?"
😅 I know the feeling. I also feel as If I've made the following point countless times. Let's go one layer deeper.
How is societal or legal change achieved? What motivates politicians to effect change? How do minority or niche issues break into the mainstream? If you answered "public opinion," you are correct.
The people "running the show" didn't want women to have the right to vote or to have abortion rights (or even what's left of them). They didn't want slavery or segregation to end. At least not initially. Abraham Lincoln forcefully put down three attempts, by his own men, to end slavery. They didn't want gay marriage to be legalised. Barack Obama had to be convinced to drop his publicly stated anti-gay marriage stance.
You can effect change without persuading the extremists. None of these injustices were resolved by unanimous agreement. But you will definitely have to persuade people who are reasonable but unconvinced. The good news is, these people, on almost every issue, are the majority.
So apologies if I mischaracterised your position by implying that you're tarring everybody with the same brush as the extremists. But what you *do* seem to be doing, is arguing that because there are insane, unreasonable people out there, some of them in positions of power, persuading those who aren't in power doesn't matter. But, in fact, it's the only strategy that does matter. And it's been proven to work time and time again.
And that is exactly why control of the narrative via control of media, both official and social, is such a big deal. If extremists can sell thier view to the majority, it is no longer fringe, it becomes mainstream. That goes to the heart of many of your commentaries.