Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:I was trying to make sure you had the opportunity to see it wasn't designed to bash you but to invite you to see things differently.

You demonstrate you have little actual understanding of how I see things.

And I don't give a ****, but it was 'bashing.'

It was needlessly personal and off-topic.

What you're trying to articulate now is you claim you were trying to advocate, to convince, to influence, to get someone to rethink their assumptions and the tactic you chose to achieve that goal was to insult them.

Good luck with that.

You don't give a ****, but it was needlessly personal and bashing? After I posted to clarify that it wasn't.
You do realize what "not giving a ****" actually means, right?

You either felt insulted or you didn't give a ****, but in one paragraph you managed to contradict yourself twice.

You demonstrate you have zero understanding of how I see things then you proceed to accuse me of wanting to employ right wing extremism on the left, and yet I was the one who was "villifying" you. How asinine is this?

For years our brains have been hammered both consciously and subconsciously by relentless, targeted, expert and disciplined messaging by the far right. And complete lack thereof from centrists.

You may better explain if I misinterpreted this. It reads to me like you lamenting the lack of moderates democrats "hammering" the conscious and subconscious by "relentless, targeted, expert and disciplined messaging."

As I say, my mind can be changed. So I'm open to listening to how I got this wrong.

The second quote has nothing to do with the first. Unless you equate targeted, relentless messaging with right wing extremism, which is what you accused me of.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:I was trying to make sure you had the opportunity to see it wasn't designed to bash you but to invite you to see things differently.

You demonstrate you have little actual understanding of how I see things.

And I don't give a ****, but it was 'bashing.'

It was needlessly personal and off-topic.

What you're trying to articulate now is you claim you were trying to advocate, to convince, to influence, to get someone to rethink their assumptions and the tactic you chose to achieve that goal was to insult them.

Good luck with that.

You don't give a ****, but it was needlessly personal and bashing? After I posted to clarify that it wasn't.
You do realize what "not giving a ****" actually means, right?

You either felt insulted or you didn't give a ****, but in one paragraph you managed to contradict yourself twice.

You demonstrate you have zero understanding of how I see things then you proceed to accuse me of wanting to employ right wing extremism on the left, and yet I was the one who was "villifying" you. How asinine is this?

For years our brains have been hammered both consciously and subconsciously by relentless, targeted, expert and disciplined messaging by the far right. And complete lack thereof from centrists.

You may better explain if I misinterpreted this. It reads to me like you lamenting the lack of moderates democrats "hammering" the conscious and subconscious by "relentless, targeted, expert and disciplined messaging."

As I say, my mind can be changed. So I'm open to listening to how I got this wrong.

The second quote has nothing to do with the first. Unless you equate targeted, relentless messaging with right wing extremism, which is what you accused me of.

I do.

And I already explained why.

But what the hell...

"In the meantime the general population is getting less educated, more disenchanted with their life and blaming it more and more on the left because they are being fed the tripe coming out of far right sites that have gone mainstream. Think moderates can address that in a bipartisan way? I don't."

Again, there isn't enough democrats to do ANYTHING without help from the general populace, which you look down on (at least here) and characterize as disenchanted and looking for a scapegoat.

You also argue moderates can't appeal to these people, which to me signals you think more extreme messagsing is required to combat the right's messaging.

I read that and conclude you advocate more polarized policy/messaging to counter the opposite extreme. I may be wrong here but I think it's a reasonable conclusion. You advocating a turn to the "far left" is what began this. I assume you meant what that means.

"Centrists haven't balanced anything because they haven't consistently stood for anything."

Right. Again, suggests to me the argument that moderate politics don't have enough red meat on the bone. Something more substantial (extreme left) is required. That's "balance".

Again, stop me when I'm wrong.

"For years our brains have been hammered both consciously and subconsciously by relentless, targeted, expert and disciplined messaging by the far right. And complete lack thereof from centrists. Electorates can be made to change over time - this is the lesson from the right wing success."

This is you characterizing what the right has done as a "success" and a lesson the left needs to learn.

I mean if this isn't expressing some admiration for the extreme right's tactics and endorsement the left needs to adopt similar tactics, then I don't know what is.

"This is why what was fringe once is now mainstream - because of messaging and constant frontal attack on people's thoughts. IT WORKS."

Yup, STILL reads that way to me.

The far left is as "fringe" as the far right. That's the whole point. You seem to want to make the far left more mainstream, by frontal attacks on people's thoughts, because that's what works.

I acknowledge you didn't say this verbatim, but again, that's the implication I think can reasonably be drawn from that.

What I accused you of is seemingly wanting to combat right wing extremism with left wing extremism, I absolutely read all this as you wanting to fight fire with fire, and because of your extreme views about centrists policy, it seems to be drawn from a similar well, a deep-ceded resentment of the results of centrist policies.

Your messaging is angry, and you accuse me (who you PERCEIVE as not agreeing with you) of being blind and/or brainwashed. That sounds a LOT to me like I've been influenced by liberal campuses and the leftist mainstream idea just with different words swapped out.

It sounds and feels familiar. You and the right both think I don't think for myself and have been effectively brainwashed.

I'm in no way accusing you of being racist or sexist or xenophobic or nationalist, those are just the trappings of modern conservatism. The underpinnings is actually fear, resentment and scapegoating and insecurity.

I'm sorry, to my eyes you DO refer to centrists in ways that reminds me of how the right refers to the left. They're to blame. And man oh man we need to HAMMER the message home what they've done and how they're responsible for all the problems we fear.

That's what I meant.

But again, the messaging and messaging tactics you seemingly want to use to convert moderates to join the required far left coalition to hold political power won't work. Moderate liberals and undecideds/unaffiliateds ARE more educated. They are LESS fearful of changing demographics. They don't pine for an era that never really existed.

"Hammering" their frontal lobs isn't going to be as effective.

I'M all for a VERY progressive liberal agenda. But its political suicide. Believing in those two things is not mutually exclusive.

Knickoftime wrote:

"In the meantime the general population is getting less educated, more disenchanted with their life and blaming it more and more on the left because they are being fed the tripe coming out of far right sites that have gone mainstream. Think moderates can address that in a bipartisan way? I don't."

Again, there isn't enough democrats to do ANYTHING without help from the general populace, which you look down on (at least here) and characterize as disenchanted and looking for a scapegoat.

Non sequitur, like everything else. You are frustrated your vapid POS candidate didn't win and you are trying to hold everyone accountable. Sucks to be you. The context of my post AGAIN (since you INSIST on cutting it out) was that what was once fringe on the right wing is NOW mainstream. So tyes there weren't enough extreme right wing support, but there is now.

You also argue moderates can't appeal to these people, which to me signals you think more extreme messagsing is required to combat the right's messaging.

I read that and conclude you advocate more polarized policy/messaging to counter the opposite extreme. I may be wrong here but I think it's a reasonable conclusion. You advocating a turn to the "far left" is what began this. I assume you meant what that means.

I didn't say anywhere they CAN'T appeal to the people, I said over the years their POLICIES and the their espoused positions have failed to do so. If you want to know what I advocate, maybe you should have the decency to just ask? But that wouldn't fit with this thrid personality for me you are creating here, would it?

"Centrists haven't balanced anything because they haven't consistently stood for anything."

Right. Again, suggests to me the argument that moderate politics don't have enough red meat on the bone. Something more substantial (extreme left) is required. That's "balance".

Again, stop me when I'm wrong.

Been trying to, it doesn't work. You are too quick for your own comprehension

"For years our brains have been hammered both consciously and subconsciously by relentless, targeted, expert and disciplined messaging by the far right. And complete lack thereof from centrists. Electorates can be made to change over time - this is the lesson from the right wing success."

This is you characterizing what the right has done as a "success" and a lesson the left needs to learn.

I mean if this isn't expressing some admiration for the extreme right's tactics and endorsement the left needs to adopt similar tactics, then I don't know what is.

I expressed admiration for the Right's ability to take their message to their base and to convert mainstream voters to the right. Yes I absolutely do admire their ability to act as a monolithic unified block. They are also very clear about what they stand for and what their base stands for. Both admirable qualities when trying to win people over. ONLY you can think this means I admire what they stand for OR their EXTREIMISM. But stupid ain't my problem to fix.

"This is why what was fringe once is now mainstream - because of messaging and constant frontal attack on people's thoughts. IT WORKS."

Yup, STILL reads that way to me.

The far left is as "fringe" as the far right. That's the whole point. You seem to want to make the far left more mainstream, by frontal attacks on people's thoughts, because that's what works.

I acknowledge you didn't say this verbatim, but again, that's the implication I think can reasonably be drawn from that.

Oh now he acknowledges it, I am am exceedingly humbled bu your grace.

What I accused you of is seemingly wanting to combat right wing extremism with left wing extremism, I absolutely read all this as you wanting to fight fire with fire, and because of your extreme views about centrists policy, it seems to be drawn from a similar well, a deep-ceded resentment of the results of centrist policies.

Your messaging is angry, and you accuse me (who you PERCEIVE as not agreeing with you) of being blind and/or brainwashed. That sounds a LOT to me like I've been influenced by liberal campuses and the leftist mainstream idea just with different words swapped out.

It sounds and feels familiar. You and the right both think I don't think for myself and have been effectively brainwashed.

Wrong again.If I perceived you as brainwashed I wouldn't be wasting this much time trying to talk to you. I perceive you as limited in your scope for politics and also in being able to see anything as non black and white. Those are the only real criticisms I have leveled at you. The entire time I have been telling you we have 60 years of data to show centrism doesn't work - the question isn't why I am angry with them the question is why aren't you BOB?

I'm in no way accusing you of being racist or sexist or xenophobic or nationalist, those are just the trappings of modern conservatism. The underpinnings is actually fear, resentment and scapegoating and insecurity.

I'm sorry, to my eyes you DO refer to centrists in ways that reminds me of how the right refers to the left. They're to blame. And man oh man we need to HAMMER the message home what they've done and how they're responsible for all the problems we fear.

That's what I meant.

But again, the messaging and messaging tactics you seemingly want to use to convert moderates to join the required far left coalition to hold political power won't work. Moderate liberals and undecideds/unaffiliateds ARE more educated. They are LESS fearful of changing demographics. They don't pine for an era that never really existed.

"Hammering" their frontal lobs isn't going to be as effective.

I'M all for a VERY progressive liberal agenda. But its political suicide. Believing in those two things is not mutually exclusive.

Yes I get that you are offended by how I refer to centrists, I am offended by them too. How would you want me to refer to them? I think they have sold their souls to big money and deserted all the people who voted for them and had faith in them. If that offends your refined sensibilities so be it. Another reason why I think your view is limited? You think messaging means Fake news like Breitbart and negative attack ads and mudslinging. Or that's what I got from reading your stuff - I may be wrong. That wasn't the type of messaging I would EVER advocate for.