1341
I wonder why the world is on fire? A mystery (lemmy.today)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
119 comments fedilink hide all child comments
💯 2
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 59 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (9 children)

I would also argue that few people have made a very good case connecting peoples concerns to capitalism. So to many it has a Southpark-ish ring to it: capitalism is bad. Don’t do capitalism. It’s an abstract thing, and abstract opponents make people feel despair and impotence.

The most persuasive people I’ve seen don’t use that word often. They directly link peoples concerns to inequality (unfair taxation and employment laws), climate ( fossil fuel companies) and unregulated abusive businesses such as big tech.

Those are not faceless, abstract entities, so people can organise their (justified) anger better.

Has anybody else heard good approaches for helping people understand ?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 33 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    The most persuasive people I’ve seen don’t use that word often. They directly link peoples concerns to inequality (unfair taxation and employment laws), climate ( fossil fuel companies) and unregulated abusive businesses such as big tech.

    This is the way. Lefty movements have rightly been criticized for being too academic. Expressing people's concerns in a more relatable and practical way gets more people on board.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 22 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    If you’re willing to go “you’re absolutely right! What a good point!” every time the person you’re talking to aligns with you even a little bit like “you’re absolutely right, you work so hard it’s completely unfair you’re taxes are so high… and the taxes of the wealthy are so low in comparison!” they feel smart and validated and might not even notice you tacked on your own commentary and also avoid buzz words it’s actually not that difficult to talk to people in an effective way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago

    Presenting as a truck driving blue collar good ole boy before subtly bringing up how much we lose to income tax while the wealthy pay next to nothing is my technique. If they defend the wealthy they're lost to the boot polish, but that's pretty uncommon in my experience.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    I've found "You work all day and get a small salary. The business owner sits around, and gets a huge payout. Does that seem fair?" is moderately effective.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    You often get "they risk their money!" (so is gambling now something financially good?) or "they worked very hard to get there" (so why aren't they as burned out as the rest of the "less hard working" workers?)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago

    Hah, I had written something specifically about "they took on risk!" and a retort of "are we a slot machine and lotto driven society then?" but didn't polish and post it.

    For the latter, I might zero in on "they worked hard, maybe. Now they don't. Should a freeloader get more than someone who works?" to see what happens.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    IMO the challenge isn’t convincing them about socialistic policies, it’s convincing them to vote for less exciting candidates with low chances of winning in the immediate future.

    FPTP is the real issue imo, it only allows the most bland and diluted policies through very slowly while market conditions change things rapidly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    That's a good point. I've been voting for a party for years that started on 2-3% electoral preference. The general consensus at the time was that it would be nice to see them grow, but they're a wasted vote. They're now around 10-11% and even as opposition have impact.

    We don't have FPTP where I am, but I can see from our neighbours the kinds of problems it creates. Still, once you progress beyond FPTP, the kinds of attitude problems we have here still persist. I guess you'll have a better idea of the next steps once you have proportional representation, because then you have a better idea of the government people really want.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent