You’re not wrong, but winning the election isn’t the bridge the article is talking about. There’s room for both conversations in the world, and talking about the potential shift taking place in The Democratic Party may help them to win more elections.
Yeah, at least the kid didn’t shell out hundreds of dollars for gold shoes with the structural integrity of cardboard.
They’ll pick someone who covers Harris’s demographic gaps for VP, like they did Biden for Obama. Probably a moderate from a swing state. Edit: spelling.
You raise a good point. The bias towards action, real or perceived, and the catharsis of self-righteous anger are both strong motivators at work in the political realm. We’d all do well to guard ourselves against those wishing to exploit them.
You’d think so,but education and experience doesn’t really get rid of the underlying tendency so much as it inoculates you to it in specific areas of experience/expertise. Plenty of experts in their own field will look at a screw-up in another field they’re not familiar with and exclaim “just do/don’t do x, y,or z.” That’s why it’s such an insidious tendency, insight really only let’s you see how complicated certain things are while leaving the shroud of your own ignorance around everything else.
Think of a clerk having trouble with the register when you’re in a hurry to get home. You’re likely to think to yourself "come on! It’s your one job and it’s not that hard. But if you’re made to stop and think about it you realize there’s a whole litany of functions to remember for the different scenarios that come up, an encyclopedia of produce numbers to remember, company policies to be observed,and all sorts of smaller jobs to be done.
This isn’t to say that people willing to hurt others for an easy solution to their problems have an excuse. This is just to say that we would do well to remember that everyone is susceptible to the urge to oversimplify.
Edit: spelling
His appeal is the same appeal that takes each of us in at some point; he offers easy answers to complicated problems. It’s tempting to believe that only the profoundly stupid will fall for this, but when a problem is outside your knowledge or experience and someone confidently announces they have a solution its pretty easy to let yourself stop thinking any further.
Also, there are a ton of racists and xenophobes out there who already believe they have the easy answers and like the confirmation of having them parroted back at them.
That may be so, but it doesn’t stop it from being a complicated situation. What happens to US international relations when the rest of their allies come to the conclusion that they’ll be met with bombs and threats when they don’t respond to requests the way the US wants? If the US does far, far less, how much less is enough and how much is too much? What happens when Iran, its proxies, and other adversaries of Israel realize that its biggest ally no longer has its back?
I’m not telling you that calling for an end to the bloodshed is wrong, it’s not. I’m not telling you that the United States and the international community are doing enough to pressure Israel to respect human rights. I don’t think anyone knows enough of what’s going on behind the scenes to say for certain that enough is being done and what’s going on in front of our eyes says that more is required. What I am saying is that complex, world issues are complex and we cannot have a full understanding of them, nor a productive discussion about them unless we acknowledge their complexities.
Edit: I do appreciate the breakdown of how a threat works though.
You mean in an electoral democracy prospective leaders have to go out and sell the populace on their vision for the country’s path forward? Color me shocked. Who knew leaders would have to communicate with the people?
I don’t think many people are saying that the morality of a genocide is complicated, but I think plenty of people ARE saying that classifying a genocide when no two look alike and both sides of the current conflict obfuscate and lie about the facts is complicated. A lot of people are saying that responding to a genocide occurring within an entrenched conflict in one of the most volatile regions on the globe where nearly every major world power has involvement and interests IS complicated. Many of those saying that international diplomacy is complicated understand that when the most important allies of a nation violating human rights pull their support too hard or too fast that that nation is likely to accelerate its plans to try and accomplish its goals before further repercussions prevent it.
We certainly shouldn’t let these complexities prevent us from speaking out regarding what we feel is right, but pretending they don’t exist only serves the most cynical and self-serving of political interests. Resolving human rights abuses is always more complicated than slapping a genocide or not genocide label on the situation and saying “genocide bad” or “not genocide okay.”
Do you have a suggested solution?
Several of the trade groups that sued New York “vociferously lobbied the FCC to classify broadband Internet as a Title I service in order to prevent the FCC from having the authority to regulate them,” today’s 2nd Circuit ruling said. “At that time, Supreme Court precedent was already clear that when a federal agency lacks the power to regulate, it also lacks the power to preempt. The Plaintiffs now ask us to save them from the foreseeable legal consequences of their own strategic decisions. We cannot.”
This has to be one of the better, legal “go fuck yourselves” I’ve ever seen.
I love the topic, and the passion, but if you’re looking for constructive criticism I personally feel that this piece could benefit greatly from a few academic sources and a little reorganization.
On the whole the article is focusing on voter apathy, of which the statement “I’m non-political” is a symptom. Try to focus more on the subject of voter apathy and less on the particular statement. The statement is fine for a headline and an intro but as another commenter has already noted there are other reasons individuals might attest to apolitical feelings. If you reference a study on voter apathy in your introductory paragraph you can pick out the leading causes or use a few of the findings of the study to structure the rest of your article. Focus each section on one cause or finding with references back to the original source and another work or two that are focused more specifically on that subject. This will lengthen the article and lend it more true substance.
Consider combining the what can be done and where to look sections into your summation. As the purpose of this piece is to examine a social ill it is ideally suited to a “call to action” summary and these are the perfect sections for it.
Lastly, you would do well to cut down on “I” statements. They rarely engage the reader and can feel out of place when writing about a subject as universal and academic as voter apathy. For your opener think about something along the lines of “How many times has this happened to you: You’re discussing the events of the day with a friend or acquaintance only to get into the meat of the discussion and suddenly be met with the phrase ‘I’m not political’…” It directly engages the reader by asking them to participate in the thought exercise and makes the anecdote personal instead of second-hand.
I hope any of this helps. I think you’ve got a good start here and I look forward to what it could be with a little more meat on its bones.
I think you’ve got the wrong type of Goths for that last one.
So clever my first suspicion was that the source had been photoshopped.