I think a large part of why they do this and vote the way they do is because of comments like yours. Hacker news, Reddit, award shows, movies, universities, etc all have a constant drum beat of disdain and hate towards them. I think this motivates them into voting even if the vote is against their own interest.
I think we're beyond the point of "you can't criticize them. That's mean and motivates them." At what point is the line drawn? Should it be in bad taste to criticize Orban supporters because it makes them support him more? What about Erdogan? Putin? Kim Jong Un? And why is it one sided that they can't be criticized, but it's all fair and good for their own leaders to demonize everyone? It's a silly double standard and people see through it now. Concern trolling stopped being effective years ago.
If you want to win elections, yes. You never convince voters by telling them that they are evil people. Its fine to say Trump is evil, its not fine to say Trump voters are evil because those voters will now be much less likely to vote for you. They can't take back their votes, they already voted for Trump before, so they will just not vote for you when you attack them like that.
Republicans have been calling democratic voters baby-killers for the entire time I have been aware of what a republican is. This sort of behavior has only gotten worse over time. They still manage to win elections.
I get that there are real asymmetries here, but I really don't think there are substantial blocs of swing voters who use "who has insulted them less" as a real factor. If that were the case, Trump would not have made the gains he did in 2024.
The important thing is to make people feel welcome in your coalition. It is clearly possible to do that either with or without being nice. It's just a different skillset.
If you have to lie to make a point, maybe the point is invalid. And the same goes for your other comments on this page ... they have no truth to them. Low quality trash comments like "[Newsom] does seem wildly corrupt though with extreme exceptions in bills for his friends and backers, more than other politicians I've seen" and "Betting sites are trusted third parties".
I will ignore further bad arguments and baseless claims from this source.
What you say is insightful and true. The west, America in particular, has a genuine problem today with its politics of polarising people to extremes. It partly has to do with how politics is done online in the internet, through the creation of "echo chambers" where no "dissent" is tolerated.
Dems have tried the strategy of pandering to republicans for decades. That strategy in 2024 backfired and made Dems not care about the election. The whole time republicans ran a campaign saying that blue haired democrats are harming kids and they're burning down cities and someone needs to lock them up all up. Republicans had a great election year.
Again, one sided. People are tired of it. More importantly, people are growing tired of the tolerance for the people who support the current happenings. Look around about what people who stayed out of the 2024 election said and it's that Dems were milquetoast and tried to be friendly and play both sides. Look around and see why republicans were fired up to vote. It's because they loved the demonization of Dems.
The funny thing is you can criticize the supporters. It's no problem. You can criticize Bush voters and everyone will agree with you. Why? Because nobody voted for Bush. Yet he won two elections. Meaning those people regretted their vote and now completely hide that they voted for him. They also retroactively hate the Iraq War, despite supporting it in 2003 and saying anyone who opposes it is unamerican. But those people will now say Dems started the war.
Trying to pull those people over is like trying to wrestle with a greased pig. No kind words will ever be enough to grab them. They're incredibly loyal to their side no matter what, and will deny ever supporting it the moment social pressure builds up too much. But interestingly, they also respect anger and vitriol against those they feel betrayed them. Republicans loved voting for Trump because he said he was against neocons and the Iraq War and all those people who voted for them. If Trump ever falls out of favor, those people who once supported him won't be begging for leniency. They'll put on a new hat and demand revenge against him and his supporters. They don't want a both aisles softy. They'll just pretend they were always against him.
> That strategy in 2024 backfired and made Dems not care about the election
Are you saying democrats didn't vote for Kamala since Kamala didn't call Trump voters evil? What are you on about? I see no reason why you should call Trump voters evil.
As I said its fine to call Trump evil, but why call the voters evil? What purpose does that serve?
> Are you saying democrats didn't vote for Kamala since Kamala didn't call Trump voters evil?
Dems were disillusioned by the Biden administration's lack of meaningful effort to nail the previous administration's criminals to the wall. Merrick Garland was an absolute failure.
Add in things like cozying up to the Cheneys, and the incorrect assumption Trump II would be similar to Trump I.
Everything Trump has done since he was re-elected made Democrats hate him more, and more publicly, and you know what, despite that Trump's ratings have steadily fallen.
If your thesis is true, you'd expect Trump's ratings to go up.
As far as I can see, partisan hatred doesn't matter, because pretty much everybody speaking and listening to such rhetorics have already made up their minds. The battle is fought in the middle, and these people don't care about latest Truth Social posts. They care about the price of gas.
Trump fucked with the one thing people will not forget about, because their livelihood depends on it. It's going to be... interesting.
Everything republican party do and everything republicans vote for ... are fault of the opposition. Always. Republicans are little helpless souls having no choice but cause maxinum harm as long as opposition in any for exists.
Look at what that party collectively stands for now, who they kick out and who they keep. They all stand behind trump.
I learned recently that there's actually a name for this concept. Murc's law states that in American politics, only Democrats are assumed to have agency.
Presumably democratic reforms could help change the dynamic if they changed the incentives. Right now, it's a politically viable strategy to just obstruct the other party when out of power, and politically unviable strategy for Congress to oppose a president from the same party. Both of which lead to a lot of dysfunction.
As an example, if Congress had multimember districts with an appropriate voting system (e.g. ranked choice voting for all members at the same time), then you can effectively nullify the power of gerrymandered voting districts (the current system, where effectively politicians choose voters rather than the other way around). Doing so would elevate the influence of general elections over party primaries. Then representatives would be less afraid of challenges in those primaries, which is currently one of the major disincentives in opposing the president of the same political party (fear of being "primaried").
That is just progressive vs conservative, ie changing things vs conserving things, humans are biased to conserve things unless the set of changes are overwhelmingly better.
So conservatives win when progressives push for too many changes, not changing things is the default. So saying that the democrats lost the election by pushing too fast is not weird, that is just how humans works.
There's definitely an asymmetry in how the systemic dysfunction benefits the Republican party over the Democratic party. (Overall the system benefits both parties though since it entrenches partisanship.)
I'd argue that the asymmetry has less to do with change vs. no change and more to do with the Republican party currently being an "anti government" party (pivoting to that post New Deal). So less is expected of them in terms of functional governance.
With respect to change: I've heard a lot of commentary that the Republican party today is more of an instigator of change than the Democratic party (being seen as a defender of the status quo), despite the traditional alignment of Republican/conservative/no change. Democrats are seen as pro-institution and Republicans anti-institution.
In case it matters, I personally don't identify with a political party. I just want functional government and politics and I see a lot of dysfunction. I'm an engineer so naturally I gravitate towards systemic solutions to systemic problems.
> That is just progressive vs conservative, ie changing things vs conserving things.
Conserving distraction == wars, progressive distraction == LG, then B, then T, there are still letters in the alphabet to progress to - mandatory for school children to study in detail.
Conserving inflation same as progressive inflation, the small group benefiting form it - the same too.
Changing presidential candidates a few months before election and doing everything to let the other side win? Very progressive.
Promising no-more-wars and delivering more-wars? Very conservative.
Moral of the story - while 'progressive' and 'conservative' are used haphazardly, lacking precise and concrete definitions in terms of specific, measurable goals and commitments, using them for political analysis is just mud in the eyes.
Unironically yes. I lived in the Seattle area and witnessed firsthand the effects of state/county/city Democrat rule. Gifted programs cancelled, streets full of homeless and drug addicts. Hateful people yelling at and flipping me off as I take my kids to daycare for the heinous crime of driving a Tesla. I’m a well educated highly paid minority, the kind of voter that Democrats take for granted. I voted Republican down the ballot last election.
Assuming that people vote a certain way out of spite is narrow-minded. Talk to people outside of your bubble and try to understand them instead of reducing them down to caricatures. I don’t judge people on the left the way that I get judged by them. I genuinely think that my choice of political party is better for my family’s quality of life.
Well let me be the first to thank you for the extra dollar a litre on my fuel, the extra hundred or so dollars a month on my mortgage and the impending recession that your choice has imposed upon me here in Australia.
Thanks so much for voting in Trump and his enablers.
Rather than blame this voter, why don't we put some blame onto the democrats. In San Francisco, progressive democrats have wasted billions on homeless and crime but with little to show for.
Sometimes democrats do push too far left. Far left is not that much different than far right.
Horseshoe theory is real, but much like Seattle, SF's biggest problem is politically active NIMBYs (and SF has more than most places). Democrats and Republicans both have NIMBYs, it transcends political boundaries.
I don’t really give a rats ass who runs the internals of your country, and what goes on in San Francisco seems like a you problem. Due to voters like this, Trump is now my problem many thousands of miles away.
Don’t underestimate just how much ill will he is generating around the world, especially in allied nations, by insulting leaders and pushing up all of our energy prices.
Strange that when Democrats mess things up “they didn’t do that” or “that’s a you problem” but when the other side does something you’re very quick to assign specific blame. One-sided thinking like this is why no one can find common ground anymore and politics has veered off into extremes.
My favored candidate may lose but I’ll be fine regardless of who is in power. I may pay more taxes or have to pay extra for private schools, but I’ve budgeted for that. You can still call it “winning” against me if that helps you feel better though.
That's a completely intellectually bankrupt argument that blames good people for the actions of bad people. It doesn't have a shred of fact or logic to support it.
Why are all the Democrats Fox News (and the actual President of the United States himself) does a "constant drum beat of disdain and hate towards" not doing the same thing? Why is this only a concern on one side?
But when it’s time for entertainment, someone only has so much time in the day to watch a movie, play a game, watch sports, or scroll TikTok. They are all in competition with each other for that little slice of time each day
Do Chinese do this in China? Walk away from companies that will be used for war? I doesn’t seem to be prevalent and instead they try to take every advantage they can to push their country, China, to become the most dominate in the world. They must be elated to watch the world’s premier tech companies protest the American government and refusal to work with them. If I wanted China to be weaker I’d hope that Chinese companies protested and refused to work with the Chinese government.
A 2017 national intelligence law compels Chinese companies and individuals to cooperate with state intelligence when asked and without and public notice.
China has no equivalent of the whistleblower protection that enables resignations with public letters explaining why, protests, open letters with many signatures, etc. Whenever you see "Chinese whistleblower" in the news, you're looking at someone who quietly fled the country first and then blew the whistle. Example: https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/27/us/china-nyc-whistleblower-uf...
It's along the same lines, but an NSL can be challenged in court (the FISC is a secret and lopsided court, alas). Companies like Apple and Google have fought specific orders publicly (and possibly some secretly), and some have won.
NSLs are also narrow in scope: they compel data disclosure, not active technical assistance in building surveillance systems like the Chinese law.
The Chinese laws can compel any citizen anywhere in the world to perform work on supporting state military and intelligence capabilities with no recourse. There have been no cases of companies or individuals fighting those orders.
Not at all. If you're an employee at a company that receives a National Security Letter then you can just quit if you want to. Unlike in China, the US government can't force you to keep working there to suit their purposes.
Yes, of course there are people in China who, when their job puts them in conflict with their ethics, will decide to do something ethical. I can't think of any war-related examples, since it's been a while since China was involved in any big wars, but I like the story of Liu Lipeng, who used to work as an internet censor: https://madeinchinajournal.com/2025/04/03/me-and-my-censor/
You have used chatgpt presumably. Based on your interactions with it, do you seriously think it should be allowed to shoot a gun without any human oversight?
We have nukes, missiles, bombs, all capable of mass widespread death. Should we give those up too and just let adversaries be the only ones in possession of these types of weapons?
Yes we should dispense with ethics so we can win at all costs. Like your point isn’t invalid but what’s the point of restating something akin to the trolley problem but this time, as if the answer is obvious.
We can debate philosophy while our adversaries use any means at their disposal. Or we can invest in different ideas, see what works, and choose the best option.
What are we if we throw away the Constitution and allow the Government to punish people/companies that exercise their rights?
China's constitution includes freedom of speech and elections.
Funny thing when you put rights on hold today for 'reasons' they tend to just go away. Look at the US today versus pre 9/11. It's a completely different country with completely different attitudes about freedom and privacy and government over reach and power.
Is it not impressive what xai did with Grok? It's already integrated into twitter and my Tesla. So quickly? What prevented apple from doing the same but building out their equivalent of grok?
This is not a bad example. Tesla is indeed running a custom LLM, available in their vehicles, capable of acting as a general chatbot and issuing commands to the car, developed in-house. While Grok is not up-to-par with other frontier models, it's certainly far beyond Siri.
Then Reddit and almost all of social media went on to purge trump and pro trump content. The Donald was banned. Trump deplatformed across social media.
That's true, but not really relevant to this discussion. You can't really deplatform a president; yes he was no longer on Twitter, but roughly 8 billion people listen any time he speaks.
That subreddit was banned far too late. They had been urging for violence and hatred for quite some time. But action was taken only after the clowns inside of it were declaring they'd murder police officers executing a warrant (regarding legislators staying home to block quorum or whatever it was).
Of course in 2026 it is apparently fine to break into homes without a warrant and execute protesters. The same people are able to "believe" two literally opposite concepts.
2015 - 2016 reddit was exploited to hell by the_donald and other associated reddits. Things like coordinated up voting of a pinned post to get it to shoot up the front page, private chats to manipulate voting in a page.
There would be times when you would go to the r/all and half the page would be posts from them.
Not to mention a lot of the organized harassment a lot of the mods/power users of that sub caused in the years after. It was a mess.
Hey quick question, around January 2021, what would happened that caused Trump to be deplatformed? Anything stick out in your mind?
reply