People Twitter

Its called rhetoric. Its the job of changing hearts and minds and its how you win or lose elections. Lemmy has disproportionately taken an abusive and diminishing stance to anyone who would bring criticism to the Democratic party, as if acknowledging that criticism in some way diminishes the Democratic parties chances in November. The perfect example of this is the "Any Blue Will Do"/ "Blue Maga" campaign that the majority of Lemmy engaged in while Joe Biden was candidate. There were bans' about it. It was a whole thing. Short summary is that any kind of posting or discussing of Joe Biden's adequacy as candidate was branded as "right-wing schilling" or it was suggested that by presenting things like historical analysis of polling data, the putting Biden's numbers in that context, you were engaging in "disinformation". And it wasn't just on Lemmy. This was happening in mainstream new's as well. For example, Whoopi Goldberg said she would "...vote for Joe Biden even if he (shit) his pants on stage..". Another, more Lemmy relevant version of this discussion is happening now, where some popular posters are effectively disregarding/ dismissing the Gazan genocide because they perceive any criticism of Harris' stance on the matter as diminishing to her electoral chances.

So we have to ask "What are the impacts of this rhetorical approach?" Does it bring people to my side and help my cause or does it hurt it? Its obvious from the first round of ABWD/ BM under Biden as candidate, that no amount of apologism is convincing to a cohort who perceives themselves as having a valid criticism of a candidate. If anything, this rhetorical approach only further distances people from a candidate (as indicated by Biden's polling post debate). To put this in more specific terms, if you say "I don't care if a candidate shits their pants on stage, you still need to vote for this guy" when the criticism is "This guy is not capable of running a successful campaign and is clearly going to lose to Trump", you cause your "team" to lose voters. Likewise, and more salient, its not convincing to some for whom a (current administration) policy of funding "the burning of children alive in hospitals" {ABSOLUTE trigger warning. Its Sky News, so its not like a jump scare, but for Christ sake, Israel is burning children alive. No one should ever have to bear witness to that.} is a bridge too far to say "But Trump would be worse". Trump being bad isn't a convincing enough argument to vote for a pants-shitter: Whoopi gathered exactly 0 voters to Biden with that rhetorical approach. And to extend that further, quite simply, Trump being worse isn't a good enough response to convince someone to vote for a candidate that supports the burning of children alive.

And so this is the impasse that we're in. Whatever disease has stricken Lemmy (and Reddit, and Twitter, and main stream media, and on and on; its not unique to Lemmy), the majority have taken a rhetorical approach that is basically performative. The brigading, the down-voting, the trolling, is like its mostly about absolving themselves of any wrong doing with around the fact that not only is their approach to rhetoric ineffective, but it is directly undermining the performance of their proffered candidate. The downvoters here, they don't appear interested in helping Kamala get elected. They aren't interested in a rhetorical approach that grows the base. They want to diminish and ignore the legitimate criticism that this candidate is as pro-genocide as the incumbent, and at that that level of being pro-genocide is at least sufficient to spark a flaming hot war in the middle east. Its a kind of material denial-ism of reality that I really only thought possible by members of the MAGA cult, but because its so similar, I think that the term Blue MAGA is completely appropriate. And this reactionary approach to rhetoric that has taken hold: Its causing Kamala Harris to lose this election. It accepts the rightward shift Harris has made in these past few weeks. A rightward shift that took her from increasing her lead on DJT to losing it across all swing states. This movement accepts that because they are so scared that acknowledging the issue the candidate has will bring her downfall. But actually, by not engaging with the issues; by not demanding better from the candidate, she has been allowed to enter into a weaker, more vulnerable position electorally.

If the criticisms are legitimate, and I think supporting the wholesale slaughter of a people is a legitimate critisim, you need to actaully address that issue head on. Burying your head in the sand, denying the issue, and as an example, a quote one from one Lemmy's most frequent posters (their words, not mine):

Democrats won’t deport millions of brown people and force my child and those like her into conversion therapy. So yes, Republicans will be worse.

And this “there’s only one genocide that matters” shit is getting old.

Makes my point for me. The goal of this kind of rhetoric isn't to convince anyone. Its to wash ones hands.

Addendum:

Ahh I see your edit now.

Edit: incoming copy paste in 4, 3 , 2, …

Of course you weren't actually engaging in good faith. But thanks for putting your shame on display.