Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ringo M.K. Bosley, Esq.'s avatar

I want to challenge your point #3. There are two parts it in my view, and I am not sure in the end it's actually negative messaging. Two parts in : 1) how people are drawn towards something they already believe, and 2) how someone becomes drawn to change their mind or take a new perspective.

Recent studies and what I have come to learn is that you can more easily change someone's mind or get them to understand your view with POSITIVE messaging. Helping them to understand and not fighting them verbally. So, reading your post, I was then thinking, maybe folks are drawn to what they already believe more when it is used as negative messaging.

But, in actuality the examples you gave, the people who are drawn to those statements and repeat it, they would see them as positive statements. A pro-life person would undoubtedly love someone trying to stop baby murdering because they truly believe abortions are murder. A Trump supporter believes there was a time that America was great, so if someone is saying they will make it great again, that is very positive; but for the average black person, they would probably see that as negative.

The problem here is that means a candidates messaging will always be polarizing, unless you can come up with messaging that meets your other points and hits at pleading to both sides of a coin. I doubt that's possible.

This, I don't believe Democrats did anything wrong in the 2024 election (other than people really wanted Biden to drop way earlier than he did), the reality is that the people in this country are not educated and they believe in negative things, i.e. they are racist, transphobic, sexist, homophobic, etc. at the amounts of the voters who did not vote for Harris. Until we can solve that issue, we won't solve the issues you are trying to address here.

Expand full comment
Tim Zee's avatar

Thoughtful as always!

Just a few related things which have been going through my mind recently – loosely regarding 21st century epistemology.

We need to promote factual news sources which are not behind paywalls. Too many people will believe anything they see online. And of course social media is choked with disinformation and conspiracy theories. There needs to be alternatives for people who can't afford $200 a year (or whatever) for the NYT. While such sources do exist, they often get pushed into the background. Creating tiers of media veracity in the popular mind might be useful.

Teaching kids, starting in middle school, how to distinguish factual truth from BS is a useful goal. The late astronomer and science philosopher Carl Sagan included a chapter called "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" in his book The Demon-Haunted World. His main points have been adapted for a younger audience.

https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/junior-skeptic-an-easy-guide-to-baloney-detection/

Finally, we all need to step at least a little outside our own ideological comfort zones. Ideological rigidity is not good for democracy. And no matter how right we think we are, there is always room for improvement. While publications like The Atlantic and The New Statesman are generally associated with moderately progressive thinking, they are not afraid to occasionally challenge readers with something a bit heterodox. The information silos we inhabit would do well to include a front porch and a veranda.

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts