Capitol Hearings: Competing Narratives

[hollodero]

(07-31-2021, 06:23 PM)Dill Wrote: Cordial disagreement with the bolded: Roy Moore and Al Franken are out of politics because “glaring double standards” do matter. The allegation of such is a primary driver of electorate anger, especially on the right. I’d say EVERYONE minds.

Maybe. I think Moore only lost because Trump did not fully endorse him from the start.

Democrats might be a little stricter (as I said, to me one side clearly is worse), but there's enough counterexamples. Whatever happened to Cuomo, by the way, is this already done and forgotten? That Stacey Abrams did not concede even though she lost in a certified election does not matter much. Even though Trump gets roasted for the same thing (more than just that thing, but still). That is a double standard, isn't it? Maxine Waters pleads for riots if a court doesn't reach the desired verdict. Neglecting what could be perceived as a call for violence, wasn't prejudging a case in that manner real bad when Trump did it? Or calling the courts biased in general, for that matter.

This could turn into one of my lists, but I don't feel like doing that. Double standards are common place, imho.

(07-31-2021, 06:23 PM)Dill Wrote: But if I understand you, you are saying people, "pro-conservatives," would just keep their views and support for Trump, somehow, with or without the equivalences and counter-narratives? Even if the MSM were not "biased" and the Clintons were not "corrupt" and there wasn't a "deep state" out to get Trump and a failed FBI coup and there hadn't been riots last summer, even near the White House? 

Yep, pretty much. These things you mentioned sure were used and played a part in getting to this point. And they will still be cited plenty as justification. But I don't believe it's necessary to even perpetuate them. They do that on their own now in people's heads, and they became merely speech bubbles now. Just to clarify, of course Hillary crime families and Biden crime families will still be used to fuel anger, but you could use anything you wish for that at this point. Whoever democrats pick for president next time, this person will be part of a crime family, or done some other unspeakable things, and if a spirit whispered it into Hannity's ear it's as good an explanation as any. People want the anger, the explanations are just window-dressing.

Imho, the reason (I sum up all my possible responses here) is that every politically active person has already made so much enemies in their environment, or in the virtual environment of the internet, that any kind of reconsideration or mind changing became impossible. Agreeing with the people I hate-debated for so long now? Impossible. For sure, those that don't fall into this description might turn into fickle voters and help letting the pendulum swing left and right in periodic, foreseeable timeframes. But most people will not, most people will stick with the R or the D until eternity. At least on a federal level (local elections might be a different animal, I don't know). While a big portion of the population doesn't vote at all, sure.

I mean, you debated here with distincly "other-side people" for a long time now, about impeachments and then some. Did you never feel how inherently in vain all these efforts were? Do you think that is because carefully crafted counter-narratives weren't all that bad, and if they were just a little worse you'd have had more success? Because I don't. I think it has nothing to do with them at all, as stated before many times.