you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 month ago (9 children)

You make many good points IMO, and you also cover a greater political scope than this 'meme' / insight (or whatever) specifically addresses, and that's cool and educational for the likes of me, and whoever else.

...BUT...

This is not the meaning of the meme. Even if you take it in the most literal sense.

IMO you're wrong when you say that in an absolutist sense. In fact, it very much *IS* the meaning of the graphic when it comes to the USA, if at least only in part. I.e., the concerns I wrote about weren't artificial, and memes / useless promotion of thinking as in the OP aren't purely illusionary. And yes, I get that the message may indeed by multifactorial or a bit more nuanced than I fully addressed.

Mate-- the bottom line when it comes to the upcoming USA midterms is that the things I describe are real, known, serious problems in the States in recent-ish years, even if in your opinion the graphic doesn't precisely represent the toxic-thought mechanisms involved.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (8 children)

    IMO you're wrong when you say that in an absolutist sense.

    What do you see as the most literal interpretation?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (7 children)

    I think it's pretty clear, closely following the words in the OP message.

    You could be a casual or someone who doesn't follow US politics very closely, and come away with the message "ah, so that's how it works. Good to know!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (6 children)

    It did seem clear to me originally, but your first reply to me makes me think you are seeing it very differently than I do, and I'd like to understand what you are seeing. It sounds like I fell into the trap of thinking that even without adding analysis the words and images would have the same literal meaning to all.

    You're obviously under no obligation to respond but maybe my question will be more clear if I am explicit in what the most literal interpretation is to me. I'll include the text in the meme because you have mentioned it.

    The Ratchet Effect How you are being duped by the fake two party system

    I read this as an introduction to the image below, and that the image intended to demonstrate how the two party system is not what it seems.

    Democrats block movement back to the left (Image of a pawl)

    Democrats are the force that prevent the policy of the government from moving left.

    Republicans turn everything to the right (Image of a ratchet gear)

    Republicans are the force that drive movement of government policy to the right.

    My most literal interpretation is that this meme is describing the two parties as different. A pawl and a ratchet gear serve different functions. They are not the same thing. Driving policy to the right is not the same as preventing policy from moving back left. This is what I meant when I said "both sides are the same" is not the most literal meaning.

    The next thing I am going to say is an interpretation of the implied meaning of the heading, so it's no longer literal.

    How you are being duped by the fake two party system

    Taken with the images below I understand this to be implying that people may believe that the two party system is intended to move policy in either direction depending on which group is in power. The meme is saying this isn't accurate and describes the way the system works.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (5 children)

    The meme is saying this isn’t accurate and describes the way the system works.

    It really doesn't, though. In reality, it describes a chronic problem with corporate and sellout-style dems as I see it, but not the whole of the system.

    That's the problem, and that's essentially my main point.

    And I do appreciate your efforts to reach out and clarify things. Respect.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    In reality, it describes a chronic problem with corporate and sellout-style dems as I see it, but not the whole of the system.

    Can you help me see how this is a literal interpretation?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    I think I've covered everything of relevance from my end. Is there a deeper point you're searching for?

    And does "literal interpretation" mean something especially relevant to you..?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    I think I'm having difficulty understanding this:

    IMO you’re wrong when you say that in an absolutist sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Oh, it's that I felt you were coming on too strong right at that one point,
    on top of the fact I'm both sad and fearful upon the potential harms upon that certain loose, overall message.

    But it was rude of me to express it to that extent, and I apologise.
    I messed up, sorry.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment