1092
Conservative Americans are legitimately braindead (pbs.twimg.com)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
152 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Excerpt from this Substack post: https://nickrafter.substack.com/p/the-rent-may-always-be-too-damn-high

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 103 points 2 months ago (9 children)

Also to not use ANY of the conservative buzzwords they have conditioned them to hear and associate with certain things. Also don't say anything related to all their Thought Terminating Cliches.

Don't say: Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, Immigrants, anything LGBTQ, anything economy, anything equality, anything related to DEI, anything they fixate on.

Instead, use actual basic terms and explanations without using the shortcut words that they have been conditioned/brainwashed with. It's a minefield, but can be done. Don't say the economy is bad, say the cost of food is very high and I wish we had better pay or cheaper prices. Don't say you want democratic socialism, say it would be great if medical costs were fair and we had more help with everyday things we all want and need.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 59 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    For all of Trump's bullshit I credit his grade 3 level speaking with most of his success.

    The man speaks like an adult talking to a 5 year old (intentionally or not) and the American electorate responds to that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 42 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    This has been my biggest takeaway of the past ten years. The electorate wants more social democratic policies, but they are afraid of the name. Fox News has made the mention of "social" anything or "liberal" anything toxic to a not-insignificant portion of the US population, and calling these policies by their generally agreed upon designations (be it from political science, philosophy, or academia), that group will just shut it down because those words just trip something in their brains.

    Anecdotal as it may be, I got my MAGA mother to agree that a single payer healthcare system was better explaining in small words what "a common sense, good system" would look like. She was totally on board. Will she vote for "Medicare for All," now? No, because "that's socialism!!!!!1!1!!1," but an identical program that got explained was "just common sense."

    In the end, I've found that MAGA people fall into three camps: bigots, idiots, and the selfish. Bigots will never be reasoned with; they're there to hurt people. The selfish are too rich to benefit from any good policies. Idiots, though, can be reasoned with, but you have to reason with them in the language of a 10 year old. It sounds condescending (and to a degree it is), but it's the only way to get through to them.

    It seems insane from an outsider's perspective, but I think that we could get some European-esque policies passed in the US if instead of using "normal" terms, we use super mega-deluxe 'Murican cowboy names and just play into the quirks of American culture.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 2 months ago

    Oh man, spot on.

    Bigots and selfish really are both lost causes, good news is those 2 groups are a tiny fraction of the overall US population. Maybe 5-10% each. The 3rd group you named I 100% agree are idiots, but it isn't like they are idiots in all aspects. They are just politically and maybe empathetically / emotionally idiots. They fell for an absolute moron's very obvious lies and grifts. They fell for the most basic political cons. They fell for the same lies and grifts he has been doing for DECADES where he uses people and throws them under the bus at the end of their usefulness. He makes deals and doesn't pay. He gets support and doesn't hold up his end. He sells things with a promise that never comes true. Not to mention he is in the Epstein Files more than Jesus is in the Bible. Not to mention the 34 felonies. Not to mention all the bankruptcies. Not to mention all the laws he violates. Not to mention the insurrection and treason. Not to mention his corrupt ties to foreign governments and powers. Not to mention the pile of red flags with his character and behavior. AND THEY FUCKING SAW ALL THAT AND VOTED FOR HIM ANYWAY!

    Yeah, in their daily lives they may be a smart farmer and know how to grow crops well, they may be a smart business person and know sales and management well, they may be a smart person and know a dozen difficult skills and be smart in many other ways.

    But with politics and empathy, they are absolute bottom of the barrel, blind as a deaf bat morons and it is embarrassing to see just how gullible and dumb they are and it would be absolutely hilarious if it weren't for the fact that we have to be in the same boat as them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

    Can we coin new words to mean the same things, or would fox news ruin them too fast?

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

    Fundamentally, I think trying to shortcut and use terms to consolidate and represent a complex idea is broken.

    If you have never encountered the concept or had it explained, then it's some black box. What does "I support DEI policies" mean at face value. How do you parse that sentence if you've never heard the acronym?

    "It means diversity, equity, and inclusion" doesn't clarify anything. Diversity of what, specifically? Who is being included in what? How do we measure equity?

    Especially for people who have been conditioned to think that you don't qualify for diversity if you're white.

    The lesson isn't that we need new terms to rotate through to stay ahead of media. The lesson is we need to speak to the actual fucking meat of the matter.

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

    Yes and no. Yes, we should explain actual policy stances without saying "this is single-payer healthcare" or "wealth redistribution" or whatever phrase causes conservatives to shutdown. However, there still needs to be a name for shorthand purposes. It's like a pronoun in language. It gets tiring fast to keep using a person's name rather than saying "she/he/they/etc." and that causes its own issues.

    Ultimately, the outline of a solution I can see is to advocate for "common sense" reforms and explain them (first at a high level so anyone can get an idea and then at finer detail later on). Call the policy something 'Murica-esque that any truck driving, gun totin', farmer from Texas would get behind. Then stay as far away from what the rest of the universe calls the policy and deny that it's what the policy is. Those who know, will know and not care or roll their eyes, and the disengaged will go for it. For example, "This isn't socialized medicine! It's my own idea! The American Patriots Help Each Other Be Healthy policy!"

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

    "Fluffy Kitty Cat calls themselves a Zorbloxianist, but that's just because they're too ashamed to say what they really are: a socialist."

    Even in cases where people aren't just trying to come up with another word for socialist policies, they still get accused of being socialists. There's a whole narrative of environmentalists secretly being socialists, using the environment as a cover, there's people calling Joe Biden a socialist, etc. The Democrats have been doing everything they possibly can to avoid the label for at least the past 40 years and it just doesn't work, it's how we got into this mess in the first place.

    Imo there's no shortcuts. Embrace the label, and say, "Well yes I am a socialist, and what's so bad about that? Here's what we socialists believe and why." And when they try to say socialism means this or that you can push back on it and have some credibility in terms of what socialism means because you've accepted the label. That's what Mamdani actually did, and it worked.

    If you deny being a socialist, then you'll be expected to denounce it, and then the other side is free to say, "Socialism is when you eat babies" and if you try to say "That's not what socialism means" it will be met with, "Well if you're 'not a socialist' then why are you defending socialism?" And if you agree, then you're validating and strengthening the boogeyman, and if socialism is the most horrible thing ever, then it's just a question of who can look less like a socialist, which will always be the right.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent